↓ Skip to main content

Self-monitoring blood pressure in hypertension, patient and provider perspectives: A systematic review and thematic synthesis

Overview of attention for article published in Patient Education & Counseling, February 2016
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
Title
Self-monitoring blood pressure in hypertension, patient and provider perspectives: A systematic review and thematic synthesis
Published in
Patient Education & Counseling, February 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.pec.2015.08.026
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin R. Fletcher, Lisa Hinton, Jamie Hartmann-Boyce, Nia W. Roberts, Niklas Bobrovitz, Richard J. McManus

Abstract

To systematically review the qualitative evidence for patient and clinician perspectives on self-measurement of blood pressure (SMBP) in the management of hypertension focussing on: how SMBP was discussed in consultations; the motivation for patients to start self-monitoring; how both patients and clinicians used SMBP to promote behaviour change; perceived barriers and facilitators to SMBP use by patients and clinicians. Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cinahl, Web of Science, SocAbs were searched for empirical qualitative studies that met the review objectives. Reporting of included studies was assessed using the COREQ framework. All relevant data from results/findings sections of included reports were extracted, coded inductively using thematic analysis, and overarching themes across studies were abstracted. Twelve studies were included in the synthesis involving 358 patients and 91 clinicians. Three major themes are presented: interpretation, attribution and action; convenience and reassurance v anxiety and uncertainty; and patient autonomy and empowerment improve patient-clinician alliance. SMBP was successful facilitating the interaction in consultations about hypertension, bridging a potential gap in the traditional patient-clinician relationship. Uncertainty could be reduced by providing information specifically about how to interpret SMBP, what variation is acceptable, adjustment for home-clinic difference, and for patients what they should be concerned about and how to act.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 59 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 13%
Researcher 8 13%
Unspecified 5 8%
Other 17 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 32%
Unspecified 11 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 13%
Psychology 8 13%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Other 10 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 01 January 2017.
All research outputs
#2,075,040
of 13,597,333 outputs
Outputs from Patient Education & Counseling
#482
of 2,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,824
of 238,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient Education & Counseling
#11
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,597,333 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,650 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 238,579 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.