MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4396528659 · doi:10.2196/57863

The Effect of an mHealth Self-Monitoring Intervention (MI-BP) on Blood Pressure Among Black Individuals With Uncontrolled Hypertension: Randomized Controlled Trial

2024· article· en· W4396528659 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lorraine R Buis, Junhan Kim, Ananda Sen, Dongru Chen, Katee Dawood, Reema Kadri, Rachelle Muladore, Melissa Plegue, Caroline R. Richardson, Zora Djurić, Candace D. McNaughton, David W. Hutton, Lionel Robert, Sun Young Park, Phillip D. Levy

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureRandomized controlled trialAmbulatory blood pressuremHealthAdverse effectGerontologyPrehypertensionEmergency departmentIntervention (counseling)Physical therapyInternal medicinePsychological interventionNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is one of the most important cardiovascular disease risk factors and affects >100 million American adults. Hypertension-related health inequities are abundant in Black communities as Black individuals are more likely to use the emergency department (ED) for chronic disease-related ambulatory care, which is strongly linked to lower blood pressure (BP) control, diminished awareness of hypertension, and adverse cardiovascular events. To reduce hypertension-related health disparities, we developed MI-BP, a culturally tailored multibehavior mobile health intervention that targeted behaviors of BP self-monitoring, physical activity, sodium intake, and medication adherence in Black individuals with uncontrolled hypertension recruited from ED and community-based settings. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the effect of MI-BP on BP as well as secondary outcomes of physical activity, sodium intake, medication adherence, and BP control compared to enhanced usual care control at 1-year follow-up. METHODS: We conducted a 1-year, 2-group randomized controlled trial of the MI-BP intervention compared to an enhanced usual care control group where participants aged 25 to 70 years received a BP cuff and hypertension-related educational materials. Participants were recruited from EDs and other community-based settings in Detroit, Michigan, where they were screened for initial eligibility and enrolled. Baseline data collection and randomization occurred approximately 2 and 4 weeks after enrollment to ensure that participants had uncontrolled hypertension and were willing to take part. Data collection visits occurred at 13, 26, 39, and 52 weeks. Outcomes of interest included BP (primary outcome) and physical activity, sodium intake, medication adherence, and BP control (secondary outcomes). RESULTS: We obtained consent from and enrolled 869 participants in this study yet ultimately randomized 162 (18.6%) participants. At 1 year, compared to the baseline, both groups showed significant decreases in systolic BP (MI-BP group: 22.5 mm Hg decrease in average systolic BP and P<.001; control group: 24.1 mm Hg decrease and P<.001) adjusted for age and sex, with no significant differences between the groups (time-by-arm interaction: P=.99). Similar patterns where improvements were noted in both groups yet no differences were found between the groups were observed for diastolic BP, physical activity, sodium intake, medication adherence, and BP control. Large dropout rates were observed in both groups (approximately 60%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants randomized to both the enhanced usual care control and MI-BP conditions experienced significant improvements in BP and other outcomes; however, differences between groups were not detected, speaking to the general benefit of proactive outreach and engagement focused on cardiometabolic risk reduction in urban-dwelling, low-socioeconomic-status Black populations. High dropout rates were found and are likely to be expected when working with similar populations. Future work is needed to better understand engagement with mobile health interventions, particularly in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02955537; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02955537. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/12601.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies→French-language works237,207→