Usability and Acceptability of a Home Blood Pressure Telemonitoring Device Among Community-Dwelling Senior Citizens With Hypertension: Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a major cause of cardiovascular disease in older individuals. To ensure that blood pressure (BP) levels are within the optimal range, accurate BP monitoring is required. Contemporary hypertension clinical practice guidelines strongly endorse the use of home BP measurement as a preferred method of BP monitoring for individuals with hypertension. The benefits of home BP monitoring may be optimized when measurements are telemonitored to care providers; however, this may be challenging for older individuals with less technological capabilities. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this qualitative study was to examine the usability and acceptability of a home BP telemonitoring device among senior citizens. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study. Following a 1-week period of device use, individual, semistructured interviews were conducted. Interview audio recordings were anonymized, de-identified, and transcribed verbatim. We performed thematic analysis on interview transcripts. RESULTS: Seven senior citizens participated in the usability testing of the home BP telemonitoring device. Participants comprised females (n=4) and males (n=3) with a mean age of 86 years (range, 70-95 years). Overall, eight main themes were identified from the interviews: (1) positive features of the device; (2) difficulties or problems with the device; (3) device was simple to use; (4) comments about wireless capability and components; (5) would recommend device to someone else; (6) would use device in future; (7) suggestions for improving the device; and (8) assistance to use device. Additional subthemes were also identified. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the home BP telemonitoring device had very good usability and acceptability among community-dwelling senior citizens with hypertension. To enhance its long-term use, few improvements were noted that may mitigate some of the relatively minor challenges encountered by the target population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".