Engagement in mHealth-Prompted Self-Measured Blood Pressure Monitoring Among Participants Recruited From a Safety-Net Emergency Department: Secondary Analysis of the Reach Out Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hypertension, a key modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease, is more prevalent among Black and low-income individuals. To address this health disparity, leveraging safety-net emergency departments for scalable mobile health (mHealth) interventions, specifically using text messaging for self-measured blood pressure (SMBP) monitoring, presents a promising strategy. This study investigates patterns of engagement, associated factors, and the impact of engagement on lowering blood pressure (BP) in an underserved population. Objective: We aimed to identify patterns of engagement with prompted SMBP monitoring with feedback, factors associated with engagement, and the association of engagement with lowered BP. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of data from Reach Out, an mHealth, factorial trial among 488 hypertensive patients recruited from a safety-net emergency department in Flint, Michigan. Reach Out participants were randomized to weekly or daily text message prompts to measure their BP and text in their responses. Engagement was defined as a BP response to the prompt. The k-means clustering algorithm and visualization were used to determine the pattern of SMBP engagement by SMBP prompt frequency-weekly or daily. BP was remotely measured at 12 months. For each prompt frequency group, logistic regression models were used to assess the univariate association of demographics, access to care, and comorbidities with high engagement. We then used linear mixed-effects models to explore the association between engagement and systolic BP at 12 months, estimated using average marginal effects. Results: For both SMBP prompt groups, the optimal number of engagement clusters was 2, which we defined as high and low engagement. Of the 241 weekly participants, 189 (78.4%) were low (response rate: mean 20%, SD 23.4) engagers, and 52 (21.6%) were high (response rate: mean 86%, SD 14.7) engagers. Of the 247 daily participants, 221 (89.5%) were low engagers (response rate: mean 9%, SD 12.2), and 26 (10.5%) were high (response rate: mean 67%, SD 8.7) engagers. Among weekly participants, those who were older (>65 years of age), attended some college (vs no college), married or lived with someone, had Medicare (vs Medicaid), were under the care of a primary care doctor, and took antihypertensive medication in the last 6 months had higher odds of high engagement. Participants who lacked transportation to appointments had lower odds of high engagement. In both prompt frequency groups, participants who were high engagers had a greater decline in BP compared to low engagers. Conclusions: Participants randomized to weekly SMBP monitoring prompts responded more frequently overall and were more likely to be classed as high engagers compared to participants who received daily prompts. High engagement was associated with a larger decrease in BP. New strategies to encourage engagement are needed for participants with lower access to care.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".