Key result
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was rated as acceptable by 70% of patients, with increased years of schooling being the only variable associated with acceptance score (r = -0.243, p = 0.042).
Why the study?
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring aids in hypertension diagnosis and management, but evidence of its acceptance in the diverse South African population was lacking.
Is ambulatory blood pressure monitoring acceptable to hypertensive patients in a semi-rural South African primary health care setting?
Cross-Sectional (n=70)
Yes
Is ambulatory blood pressure monitoring acceptable to hypertensive patients in a semi-rural South African primary health care setting?
Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is generally well-accepted among hypertensive patients in semi-rural South African primary care, supporting its broader use to improve hypertension management.
Supports ABPM feasibility in semi-rural South African primary care; leaves open effects on control and generalizability.
Background: Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is a valuable tool that helps in providing an insight into the diagnosis and management of hypertension; however, no evidence exists of its acceptance in the diverse South African population. Aim: We assessed the acceptance of an ambulatory blood pressure monitor in patients attending public sector primary health care (PHC) clinics. Setting: Five PHC clinics in the Makana subdistrict in the Eastern Cape. Method: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 70 hypertensive patients. Eligible patients were between 40 and 75 years old, taking either enalapril and hydrochlorothiazide or enalapril, hydrochlorothiazide and amlodipine. Socio-demographic, clinical and acceptance data were collected. The monitor cuff remained in place for 24 h. Acceptance was assessed after the monitor was removed. An overall acceptance score was generated to classify acceptance as either good or poor. Results: The mean years of schooling was 5.9 years, with 22 reporting no school attendance. Generally, acceptance was good, with 70% of the population rating the technique as ‘acceptable’ (acceptance score of > 23/30). Most participants reported minimal discomfort with only 13.3% reporting that it hindered normal daily activities. Night readings interrupted sleep in 43%, with extreme sleep disturbance (≥ 3 awakenings) reported in just over half the patients. Increased years of schooling was the only variable associated with acceptance score ( r = −0.243, p = 0.042). Conclusion: Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was generally well-accepted, with few adverse effects being reported. Use of this technique at PHC facilities could reduce the incidence of misdiagnosis and uncontrolled hypertension.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chiwanza et al. (2020) conducted a cross-sectional in hypertension (n=70). Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was evaluated on Acceptance of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was rated as acceptable by 70% of patients, with increased years of schooling being the only variable associated with acceptance score (r = -0.243, p = 0.042).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: