Key result
Family physician-contracted services improve hypertension control by ~19% versus routine community management.
Why the study?
Family physician-contracted service is widely used in China for hypertension management, but its effect on hypertension control needed systematic assessment.
Does family physician-contracted service improve hypertension control rates in patients with hypertension?
Meta-Analysis (n=8,424)
Does family physician-contracted service improve hypertension control rates in patients with hypertension?
Effect estimate: RD 0.19 (95% CI 0.16-0.21)
p-value: p=<0.001
Family physician-contracted service, particularly when incorporating patient self-management and family support, is beneficial for improving hypertension control rates.
Supports adoption of family physician-contracted services in hypertension care; confirms structured primary care models outperform routine management.
BACKGROUND: Hypertension is one of the global public health problems. Family physician-contracted service (FPCS) is widely used in the health management of hypertension patients in China. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of FPCS on hypertension control. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Network, Chinese Scientific and Technological Journal Database (CQVIP), and Wanfang Database were searched for randomized controlled trials related to family physician-contracted service and hypertension control effect, and meta-analysis was performed on the literature meeting the inclusion criteria. The source of heterogeneity was discovered by meta-regression, and it was further investigated by subgroup analysis. The risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were utilized as effect values. Evaluations of publication bias and sensitivity analysis were also conducted. RESULTS: = 59.3%). The average age (β = 0.28; P = 0.05) and the intervention mode (β = 0.36; P < 0.001) were found to be heterogeneous sources by the meta-regression. According to subgroup analysis, the hypertension control rates of the elderly and working-age population in the experimental group were 93.6% and 90.1%, respectively; the control rates of the "family physician" mode (FP), "family physician + patient" mode (FPP) and "family physician + patient + family member" mode (FPPF) in the experimental group were 90.1%, 94.4%, and 92.6%, respectively. The sensitivity analysis revealed steady results, with no discernible publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: The FPCS is beneficial to the control of hypertension. The control effect is influenced by average age and intervention mode. The control effect of hypertension in the elderly is better than that in the working-age population, and FPP and FPPF are more beneficial to the management of hypertension than FP. The quality and continuity of FPCS should receive more focus in the future, patient self-management and family support are also essential for managing hypertension.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zheng et al. (2024) conducted a meta-analysis in Hypertension (n=8,424). Family physician-contracted service (FPCS) vs. Routine community management or self-medication was evaluated on Hypertension control rate (RD 0.19, 95% CI 0.16-0.21, p=<0.001). Family physician-contracted services significantly improved the hypertension control rate by 19% (RD 0.19) compared to routine community management or self-medication.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: