Automated Messaging Program to Facilitate Systematic Home Blood Pressure Monitoring: Qualitative Analysis of Provider Interviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a leading cause of cardiovascular and kidney disease in the United States, yet blood pressure (BP) control at a population level is poor and worsening. Systematic home BP monitoring (HBPM) programs can lower BP, but programs supporting HBPM are not routinely used. The MyBP program deploys automated bidirectional text messaging for HBPM and disease self-management support. OBJECTIVE: We aim to produce a qualitative analysis of input from providers and staff regarding implementation of an innovative HBPM program in primary care practices. METHODS: Semistructured interviews (average length 31 minutes) were conducted with physicians (n=11), nurses, and medical assistants (n=6) from primary care settings. The interview assessed multiple constructs in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains of intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, and characteristics of individuals. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using inductive coding to organize meaningful excerpts and identify salient themes, followed by mapping to the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research constructs. RESULTS: Health care providers reported that MyBP has good ease of use and was likely to engage patients in managing their high BP. They also felt that it would directly support systematic BP monitoring and habit formation in the convenience of the patient's home. This could increase health literacy and generate concrete feedback to raise the day-to-day salience of BP control. Providers expressed concern that the cost of BP devices remains an encumbrance. Some patients were felt to have overriding social or emotional barriers, or lack the needed technical skills to interact with the program, use good measurement technique, and input readings accurately. With respect to effects on their medical practice, providers felt MyBP would improve the accuracy and frequency of HBPM data, and thereby improve diagnosis and treatment management. The program may positively affect the patient-provider relationship by increasing rapport and bidirectional accountability. Providers appreciated receiving aggregated HBPM data to increase their own efficiency but also expressed concern about timely routing of incoming HBPM reports, lack of true integration with the electronic health record, and the need for a dedicated and trained staff member. CONCLUSIONS: In this qualitative analysis, health care providers perceived strong relative advantages of using MyBP to support patients. The identified barriers suggest the need for corrective implementation strategies to support providers in adopting the program into routine primary care practice, such as integration into the workflow and provider education. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03650166; https://tinyurl.com/bduwn6r4.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".