Effect of Self-Measuring Blood Pressure Program on Hypertension Control: Analysis by Diabetes Status, Age, Gender, and Race in Rural Arizona

0Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Rural areas face numerous health challenges, including workforce shortages, limited training opportunities, and delayed care. These disparities can be mitigated by self-management interventions for diseases such as hypertension. This study assessed the implementation of a Self-Measuring Blood Pressure (SMBP) program in rural Arizona, documenting its barriers and patient experiences. Methods: In this before-after study, participants were loaned a digital device which they used to self-measure and record blood pressure (BP) over 1 week or more for hypertension diagnosis or 4 weeks or more for monitoring. Blood pressure (BP) control was assessed per the guidelines of the American Heart Association and American Diabetes Association. BP changes between baseline and post-program were assessed using paired-Student t tests. Effect modification by diabetes was analyzed using stratification. Results: Among 740 participants, significant associations were found with gender, age, and controlled BP among non-diabetic patients. Post-intervention, 63.4% of diabetic patients showed controlled BP, and 25.7% of non-diabetic patients had controlled BP, with higher control rates among females and older age groups (60–79 years). Baseline mean SBP was 148.3 ± 19.6 mmHg, improving to 133.9 ± 14.6 mmHg; baseline DBP was 88.5 ± 33.6 mmHg, improving to 83.4 ± 9.6 mmHg. Conclusions: The SMBP program effectively controlled BP, highlighting the value of combining clinical care with telemonitoring.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Luzingu, J., Kilungo, A., Flores, R., Baccam, Z., Turner-Warren, T., Reis, T., … Ehiri, J. (2024). Effect of Self-Measuring Blood Pressure Program on Hypertension Control: Analysis by Diabetes Status, Age, Gender, and Race in Rural Arizona. Clinics and Practice, 14(6), 2637–2649. https://doi.org/10.3390/clinpract14060208

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free