Evaluation of Home Blood Pressure Monitoring for Patients with Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy: A Rapid Review

Background/Objectives: Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDPs) affect approximately one in seven hospital deliveries in the United States and increase the risk of pregnancy-associated mortality. Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) for patients with HDPs has emerged as a model of care poised to improve ascertainment of blood pressure and triage of care during pregnancy and postpartum periods. However, the strength of evidence supporting HBPM approaches has been variable. This rapid review aimed to understand how HBPM approaches for pregnant and postpartum populations with HDPs have been evaluated in order to strengthen future research. Methods: Search criteria included peer-reviewed literature in English and French published during 2018–2024 that assessed HBPM approaches for pregnant and postpartum populations in high-income countries. A total of 370 records were screened and reviewed to identify 52 eligible articles. Key study characteristics, methodologies, and outcome measures were extracted. Identified outcome measures were mapped by outcome type (implementation, health service, and client) to assess gaps in evaluation of HBPM approaches. Results: A range of study designs were employed to evaluate HBPM approaches: experimental (17%), observational (52%), qualitative (10%), mixed method (10%), and economic (11%) designs. Over a third employed a comparison group, most of which compared HBPM approaches to usual antepartum or postpartum care. Only 11 studies reported on impact outcomes (long-term blood pressure control, adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes). Significant gaps were identified among the implementation outcomes examined. While patient engagement measures were common, assessment of provider adherence and engagement was limited. Hospital admissions and emergency department visits were often employed as proxies to measure HBPM effectiveness, efficiency, and safety. However, no studies adequately reported effectiveness measures for remote patient triage. Conclusions: Our results call for improved HBPM metrics to ensure patients are receiving high-quality care responsive to their clinical condition. Future studies on HBPM approaches should prioritize more transparent reporting on health actor engagement. A composite measure including both patient and provider adherence to monitoring and triage processes will provide stronger evidence on the effectiveness of HBPM for pregnant and postpartum patients and share impactful learning for health systems interested in adopting HBPM approaches.