MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416921227 · doi:10.1080/28355245.2025.2594869

How and why do Australians obtain blood pressure devices for use at home? A mixed-methods study revealing health literacy responsive ways to support this self-management behaviour

2025· article· en· W4416921227 on OpenAlexaff
Eleanor Clapham, Kaylee Slater, Aletta E. Schutte, John Stevens, Mark Nelson, Markus P. Schlaich, Rachel E. Climie, Ross T. Tsuyuki, George S. Stergiou, Norm R.C. Campbell, Dean S. Picone, Niamh Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Literacy and Communication Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersMedical Research CouncilNational Health and Medical Research CouncilNational Heart Foundation of Australia
KeywordsHealth literacyLiteracyPharmacyPhoneQuality (philosophy)Health careHealth professionalseHealth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Adequate health literacy is integral to support self-management behaviours, including home blood pressure (BP) monitoring, which is recommended for hypertension management. Using a validated device that has been tested for accuracy is essential to obtain reliable BP readings, but only 25% of devices available for purchase at pharmacies meet this standard. Little is known about how consumers obtain BP devices, factors influencing their choices, and the impact of health literacy on device selection.Objective To determine how consumers obtain BP devices and explore the impact of health literacy on device ownership.Methods Mixed-methods study with an online survey and phone interviews among adults who measure BP at home in Australia (June-Dec 2023). Survey questions determined health literacy status, BP device make/model, validation status (evidence the device had been tested for accuracy) and factors influencing selection. Interviews further explored these topics among a subset of purposively sampled participants.Results Participants (n = 241) were middle aged (58 ± 16 years, 52% women) and 74% had adequate health literacy. Only 51% (n = 123) of participants used validated BP devices. Most participants purchased their device (91%, n = 189), with 69% (n = 130) from pharmacies. Regardless of health literacy level, accuracy, quality and recommendations from a medical professional were the most important considerations when selecting a BP device. More participants with inadequate health literacy considered medical professional recommendations as most important (48.8% vs. 29.1%, p = 0.035). However, no education was provided to support obtaining a validated BP device by healthcare providers. In the absence of education, interviewees (n = 27) used brand recognition, online reviews and avoided cheaper devices to select an ‘accurate’ device. Health literacy status did not impact ownership of a validated BP device or how devices were obtained.Conclusion Only 51% of Australian adults that measure BP at home use a device that has been tested for accuracy. Despite accuracy and medical professional recommendations being key considerations when choosing a device, little support was provided to aid participants to obtain a validated device. Our findings highlight the need for health services and providers to be more responsive to support consumers to obtain validated devices for home BP monitoring.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.633
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Literacy and Communication OpenSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207