Key result
A short pharmacist-led hypertension management service significantly reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure at 3 months (P<0.01), whereas the full intervention showed no significant changes.
Why the study?
Does a pharmacist-led hypertension management service improve blood pressure control and medication adherence in primary care patients with hypertension?
Does a pharmacist-led hypertension management service improve blood pressure control and medication adherence in primary care patients with hypertension?
p-value: p=<0.01
A shortened pharmacist-led hypertension intervention improved blood pressure and medication adherence at 3 months, though the full intervention did not show significant differences from usual care, highlighting methodological challenges in screening.
Short pharmacist-led service was associated with BP reductions; leaves open optimal duration and requires randomized trials before practice change.
BACKGROUND: Suboptimal utilisation of pharmacotherapy, non-adherence to prescribed treatment, and a lack of monitoring all contribute to poor blood (BP) pressure control in patients with hypertension. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the implementation of a pharmacist-led hypertension management service in terms of processes, outcomes, and methodological challenges. METHOD: A prospective, controlled study was undertaken within the Australian primary care setting. Community pharmacists were recruited to one of three study groups: Group A (Control - usual care), Group B (Intervention), or Group C (Short Intervention). Pharmacists in Groups B and C delivered a service comprising screening and monitoring of BP, as well as addressing poor BP control through therapeutic adjustment and adherence strategies. Pharmacists in Group C delivered the shortened version of the service. RESULTS: Significant changes to key outcome measures were observed in Group C: reduction in systolic and diastolic BPs at the 3-month visit (P<0.01 and P<0.01, respectively), improvement in medication adherence scores (P=0.01), and a slight improvement in quality of life (EQ-5D-3L Index) scores (P=0.91). There were no significant changes in Group B (the full intervention), and no differences in comparison to Group A (usual care). Pharmacists fed-back that patient recruitment was a key barrier to service implementation, highlighting the methodological implications of screening. CONCLUSION: A collaborative, pharmacist-led hypertension management service can help monitor BP, improve medication adherence, and optimise therapy in a step-wise approach. However, blood pressure screening can effect behaviour change in patients, presenting methodological challenges in the evaluation of services in this context.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bajorek et al. (2016) studied Hypertension. Pharmacist-led hypertension management service vs. Usual care was evaluated on Reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (p=<0.01). A short pharmacist-led hypertension management service significantly reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure at 3 months (P<0.01), whereas the full intervention showed no significant changes.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: