↓ Skip to main content

Patients’ and clinicians’ views on the optimum schedules for self-monitoring of blood pressure: a qualitative focus group and interview study

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Patients’ and clinicians’ views on the optimum schedules for self-monitoring of blood pressure: a qualitative focus group and interview study
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, July 2016
DOI 10.3399/bjgp16x686149
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sabrina Grant, James A Hodgkinson, Siobhan L Milner, Una Martin, Alice Tompson, FD Richard Hobbs, Jonathan Mant, Richard J McManus, Sheila M Greenfield

Abstract

Self-monitoring of blood pressure is common but guidance on how it should be carried out varies and it is currently unclear how such guidance is viewed. To explore patients' and healthcare professionals' (HCPs) views and experiences of the use of different self-monitoring regimens to determine what is acceptable and feasible, and to inform future recommendations. Thirteen focus groups and four HCP interviews were held, with a total of 66 participants (41 patients and 25 HCPs) from primary and secondary care with and without experience of self-monitoring. Standard and shortened self-monitoring protocols were both considered. Focus groups and interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using the constant comparative method. Patients generally supported structured schedules but with sufficient flexibility to allow adaptation to individual routine. They preferred a shorter (3-day) schedule to longer (7-day) regimens. Although HCPs could describe benefits for patients of using a schedule, they were reluctant to recommend a specific schedule. Concerns surrounded the use of different schedules for diagnosis and subsequent monitoring. Appropriate education was seen as vital by all participants to enable a self-monitoring schedule to be followed at home. There is not a 'one size fits all approach' to developing the optimum protocol from the perspective of users and those implementing it. An approach whereby patients are asked to complete the minimum number of readings required for accurate blood pressure estimation in a flexible manner seems most likely to succeed. Informative advice and guidance should incorporate such flexibility for patients and professionals alike.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 22%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Unspecified 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 39%
Unspecified 3 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 4 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 May 2020.
All research outputs
#10,000,117
of 15,699,401 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#2,507
of 3,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,101
of 265,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#63
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,699,401 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,370 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.4. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 265,909 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.