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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".