The Association Between Smartphone App–Based Self-monitoring of Hypertension-Related Behaviors and Reductions in High Blood Pressure: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Self-monitoring of behavior can support lifestyle modifications; however, we do not know whether such interventions are effective in supporting positive changes in hypertension-related health behaviors and thus in reducing blood pressure in patients treated for hypertension. Objective This systematic literature review evaluates the extent to which smartphone app–based self-monitoring of health behavior supports reductions in blood pressure and changes in hypertension-related behaviors. It also explores the behavioral components that might explain intervention effectiveness. Methods A systematic search of 7 databases was conducted in August 2021. Article screening, study and intervention coding, and data extraction were completed independently by reviewers. The search strategy was developed using keywords from previous reviews and relevant literature. Trials involving adults, published after the year 2000, and in the English language were considered for inclusion. The random-effects meta-analysis method was used to account for the distribution of the effect across the studies. Results We identified 4638 articles, of which 227 were included for full-text screening. A total of 15 randomized controlled trials were included in the review. In total, 7415 patients with hypertension were included in the meta-analysis. The results indicate that app-based behavioral self-monitoring interventions had a small but significant effect in reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP), on average, by 1.64 mmHg (95% CI 2.73-0.55, n=7301; odds ratio [OR] 1.60, 95% CI 0.74-3.42, n=114) and in improving changes in medication adherence behavior (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.78, 95% CI 0.22-1.34) compared to usual care or minimal intervention. The review found the intervention had a small effect on supporting improvements in healthy diet by changing habits related to high sodium food (SMD –0.44, 95% CI –0.79 to –0.08) and a trend, although insignificant, toward supporting smoking cessation, low alcohol consumption, and better physical activity behaviors. A subgroup analysis found that behavioral self-monitoring interventions combined with tailored advice resulted in higher and significant changes in both SBP and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) in comparison to those not providing tailored advice (SBP: –2.92 mmHg, 95% CI –3.94 to –1.90, n=3102 vs –0.72 mmHg, 95% CI –1.67 to 0.23, n=4199, χ2=9.65, P=.002; DBP: –2.05 mmHg, 95% CI –3.10 to –1.01, n=968 vs 1.54 mmHg, 95% CI –0.53 to 3.61, n=400, χ2=9.19, P=.002). Conclusions Self-monitoring of hypertension-related behaviors via smartphone apps combined with tailored advice has a modest but potentially clinically significant effect on blood pressure reduction. Future studies could use rigorous methods to explore its effects on supporting changes in both blood pressure and hypertension-related health behaviors to inform recommendations for policy making and service provision. Trial Registration PROSPERO CRD42019136158; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=136158
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".