Why the study?
Does self-management including telemonitoring reduce systolic blood pressure at 6 and 12 months compared to usual care in patients with poorly controlled hypertension?
Does self-management including telemonitoring reduce systolic blood pressure at 6 and 12 months compared to usual care in patients with poorly controlled hypertension?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Self-management with telemonitoring improves systolic blood pressure control compared to usual care in patients with poorly controlled hypertension.
Commentary on: 1. McManus RJ, 2. Mant J, 3. Bray EP, 4. et al . Telemonitoring and self-management in the control of hypertension (TASMINH2): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010;376:163–72. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Hypertension is a major, modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease, but less than 25% of treated adult patients attain the target blood pressure of <140/90 mm Hg.1 The principal of patients-as-providers of their own care is an important objective for the National Health Service in the UK. Emerging evidence suggests that patient's involvement in decision making can lead to improved health outcomes, satisfaction and compliance. Remote monitoring systems (or telemonitoring) are considered as an appropriate tool for the self-management of long-term conditions, however; questions remain over its efficacy in the care of hypertensive patients.2 In this study, 527 patients aged between 35 and 85 years with a blood pressure of >140/90 and <200/100 mm Hg, prescribed ≤2 antihypertensive drugs and able to measure their own blood pressure were randomised to usual care or telemonitoring and self-care. … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DLancet%26rft.stitle%253DLancet%26rft.aulast%253DMcManus%26rft.auinit1%253DR.%2BJ.%26rft.volume%253D376%26rft.issue%253D9736%26rft.spage%253D163%26rft.epage%253D172%26rft.atitle%253DTelemonitoring%2Band%2Bself-management%2Bin%2Bthe%2Bcontrol%2Bof%2Bhypertension%2B%2528TASMINH2%2529%253A%2Ba%2Brandomised%2Bcontrolled%2Btrial.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252FS0140-6736%252810%252960964-6%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F20619448%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60964-6&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=20619448&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F16%2F1%2F17.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000280313100023&link_type=ISI
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kenneth Earle (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: