↓ Skip to main content

Self-monitoring blood pressure in patients with hypertension: an internet-based survey of UK GPs

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Self-monitoring blood pressure in patients with hypertension: an internet-based survey of UK GPs
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, August 2016
DOI 10.3399/bjgp16x687037
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin R Fletcher, Lisa Hinton, Emma P Bray, Andrew Hayen, FD Richard Hobbs, Jonathan Mant, John F Potter, Richard J McManus

Abstract

Previous research suggests that most GPs in the UK use self-monitoring of blood pressure (SMBP) to monitor the control of hypertension rather than for diagnosis. This study sought to assess current practice in the use of self-monitoring and any changes in practice following more recent guideline recommendations. To survey the views and practice of UK GPs in 2015 with regard to SMBP and compare them with a previous survey carried out in 2011. Web-based survey of a regionally representative sample of 300 UK GPs. GPs completed an online questionnaire concerning the use of SMBP in the management of hypertension. Analyses comprised descriptive statistics, tests for between-group differences (z, Wilcoxon signed-rank, and χ(2) tests), and multivariate logistic regression. Results were available for 300 GPs (94% of those who started the survey). GPs reported using self-monitoring to diagnose hypertension (169/291; 58%; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 52 to 64) and to monitor control (245/291; 84%; 95% CI = 80 to 88), the former having significantly increased since 2011 (from 37%; 95% CI = 33 to 41; P<0.001) with no change in monitoring for control. More than half of GPs used higher systolic thresholds for diagnosis (118/169; 70%; 95% CI = 63 to 77) and treatment (168/225; 75%; 95% CI = 69 to 80) than recommended in guidelines, and under half (120/289; 42%; 95% CI = 36 to 47) adjusted the SMBP results to guide treatment decisions. Since new UK national guidance in 2011, GPs are more likely to use SMBP to diagnose hypertension. However, significant proportions of GPs continue to use non-standard diagnostic and monitoring thresholds. The use of out-of-office methods to improve the accuracy of diagnosis is unlikely to be beneficial if suboptimal thresholds are used.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
Unknown 24 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 32%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Other 3 12%
Unspecified 2 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 7 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 36%
Psychology 5 20%
Unspecified 3 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Other 4 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 June 2019.
All research outputs
#3,153,998
of 13,536,695 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#1,141
of 2,924 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,630
of 261,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#41
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,536,695 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,924 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 261,290 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 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 50% of its contemporaries.