↓ Skip to main content

Influence of ethnicity on acceptability of method of blood pressure monitoring: a cross-sectional study in primary care

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, June 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 (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Influence of ethnicity on acceptability of method of blood pressure monitoring: a cross-sectional study in primary care
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, June 2016
DOI 10.3399/bjgp16x685717
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sally Wood, Sheila M Greenfield, M Sayeed Haque, Una Martin, Paramjit S Gill, Jonathan Mant, Mohammed A Mohammed, Gurdip Heer, Amanpreet Johal, Ramandeep Kaur, Claire Schwartz, Richard J McManus

Abstract

Ambulatory and/or home monitoring are recommended in the UK and the US for the diagnosis of hypertension but little is known about their acceptability. To determine the acceptability of different methods of measuring blood pressure to people from different minority ethnic groups. Cross-sectional study with focus groups in primary care in the West Midlands. People of different ethnicities with and without hypertension were assessed for acceptability of clinic, home, and ambulatory blood pressure measurement using completion rate, questionnaire, and focus groups. A total of 770 participants were included, who were white British (n = 300), South Asian (n = 241), and African Caribbean (n = 229). White British participants had significantly higher successful completion rates across all monitoring modalities compared with the other ethnic groups, especially for ambulatory monitoring: white British (n = 277, 92% [95% confidence interval [CI] = 89% to 95%]) versus South Asian (n = 171, 71% [95% CI = 65% to 76%], P<0.001) and African Caribbean (n = 188, 82% [95% CI = 77% to 87%], P<0.001), respectively. There were significantly lower acceptability scores for minority ethnic participants across all monitoring methods compared with white British participants. Focus group results highlighted self-monitoring as most acceptable and ambulatory monitoring least acceptable without consistent differences by ethnicity. Clinic monitoring was seen as inconvenient and anxiety provoking but with the advantage of immediate professional input. Reduced acceptability and completion rates among minority ethnic groups raise important questions for the implementation and interpretation of blood pressure monitoring. Selection of method of blood pressure monitoring should take into account clinical need, patient preference, and potential cultural barriers to monitoring.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 22%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Other 3 11%
Professor 2 7%
Other 9 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 48%
Unspecified 4 15%
Psychology 3 11%
Computer Science 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 4 15%

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 22 June 2019.
All research outputs
#2,198,475
of 13,533,353 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#933
of 2,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,085
of 261,976 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#29
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,533,353 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 261,976 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 79% 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 65% of its contemporaries.