↓ Skip to main content

Trends in the diagnosis and management of hypertension: repeated primary care survey in South West England

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Trends in the diagnosis and management of hypertension: repeated primary care survey in South West England
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, March 2017
DOI 10.3399/bjgp17x690461
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natasha Mejzner, Christopher E Clark, Lindsay Fp Smith, John L Campbell

Abstract

Previous surveys identified a shift to nurse-led care in hypertension in 2010. In 2011 the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended ambulatory (ABPM) or home (HBPM) blood pressure (BP) monitoring for diagnosis of hypertension. To survey the organisation of hypertension care in 2016 to identify changes, and to assess uptake of NICE diagnostic guidelines. Questionnaires were distributed to all 305 general practices in South West England. Responses were compared with previous rounds (2007 and 2010). Data from the 2015 Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) were used to compare responders with non-responders, and to explore associations of care organisation with QOF achievement. One-hundred-and-seventeen practices (38%) responded. Responders had larger list sizes and greater achievement of the QOF target BP ≤150/90 mmHg. Healthcare assistants (HCAs) now monitor BP in 70% of practices, compared with 37% in 2010 and 19% in 2007 (P<0.001). Nurse prescribers alter BP medication in 26% of practices (11% in 2010, none in 2007; P<0.001). Of the practices, 89% have access to ABPM, but only 71% report confidence in interpreting results. Also, 87% offer HBPM, with 93% of these confident in interpreting results. In primary care BP monitoring has devolved from GPs and nurses to HCAs. One in 10 practices are not implementing NICE guidelines on ABPM and HBPM for diagnosis of hypertension. Most practices express confidence interpreting HBPM results but less so with ABPM. The need for education and quality assurance for allied health professionals is highlighted, and for training in ABPM interpretation for GPs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 28 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 13%
Social Sciences 7 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 30 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 August 2020.
All research outputs
#2,585,098
of 25,543,275 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#1,219
of 4,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,659
of 323,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#28
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,543,275 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,902 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,463 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.