Cluster-randomized trial shows community health workers improve blood pressure control in uncontrolled hypertension, indicating mobile support could enhance care.
Access to hypertension care remains insufficient, particularly in remote rural areas in resource-limited settings. Community health workers (CHWs), lay providers living in the communities they serve, may help close this gap, but the effectiveness and safety of lay CHW-led hypertension care—including independent initiation and titration of medication—remain uncertain. We conducted a 1:1 cluster-randomized trial nested within the Community-Based Chronic Care Lesotho (ComBaCaL) cohort study in 103 rural villages in Lesotho. Following community-based hypertension screening, 547 nonpregnant adults with blood pressure (BP) ≥140/90 mm Hg were enrolled (274 control and 273 intervention). In intervention clusters, lay CHWs independently prescribed and titrated a fixed-dose combination of amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide, guided by a mobile clinical decision support system. In control clusters, participants were referred to health facilities for standard care. The primary objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of lay CHW-led care, with the primary outcome defined as BP <140/90 mm Hg at 12 months. In the intention-to-treat analysis (543 participants with 4 exclusions owing to intercurrent pregnancy), BP control was achieved by 156/271 (58%) versus 130/272 (48%) in intervention and control arms, respectively (adjusted odds ratio 1.52, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 2.29, P = 0.046). A predefined complete case analysis yielded consistent results. No relevant differences in safety outcomes were observed. Among people with uncontrolled hypertension, lay CHW-led, CDSS-supported care was safe and more effective than referral to facility-based professional care. These findings support expanding first-line hypertension management by lay CHWs in remote, resource-limited settings. Clinicaltrials.gov registration: NCT05684055 .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gerber et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: