The Patient-Provider Gap: A Cross-sectional Survey to Understand Barriers and Motivating Factors for Home Blood Pressure Monitoring in a CKD Cohort
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:Blood pressure (BP) management can decrease morbidity and mortality in chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients. Evidence-based hypertension guidelines endorse home BP monitoring (HBPM), and the growing use of virtual health has highlighted the need for HBPM. A comprehensive understanding of HBPM adoption in our province is lacking.Objective:To identify the baseline practices, perspectives, barriers, and enablers in both providers and patients in our kidney care clinics regarding HBPM. Ultimately, this will inform the development of a provincial intervention that empowers providers to both increase patient understanding and equip them for accurate and reliable home BP measurement.Design:Cross-sectional, descriptive study using online survey methodology.Setting:Kidney care clinic network in the province of British Columbia, Canada.Patients or Sample or Participants:Kidney care clinic staff and patients who perform HBPM.Methods:Data were collected using semi-structured online surveys, one for staff and one for patients and/or caregivers. These surveys were developed by an interdisciplinary working group that included patient partners and addressed some key components of the implementation of an HBPM program (including perceived barriers to uptake, education, and adoption of best practices).Results:In all, 46 patients and 43 staff responded to the survey from 16 kidney care clinics. Of the patients 53% were women, and the most common age range was 60 to 69 years (25%); 93% of the staff respondents were women and 63% were nurses. We identified numerous areas of discordance between providers and patients and the need for improvement from the perspective of implementing best practices from hypertension guidelines, both in staff teaching and patient usage of HBPM. Blood pressure targets were not known to 18% of patients and 39% of patients had received a BP target from their kidney care clinic team; 89% of patients had not had their upper arm circumference measured for cuff size. Furthermore, 54% of patients knew what to do when their BP is off-target. All recognized the benefits of HBPM, providers were more likely to perceive anxiety as a barrier relative to patients, and patients were more likely to report expense as a barrier than providers.Limitations:This study includes only a single provincial health care system limiting generalizability to other jurisdictions and sampled a small subset of patients and providers.Conclusions:The systematic evaluation of education, understanding, implementation of best practices, and barriers and motivating factors for HBPM from both patient and clinician perspectives is an important step in designing strategies to improve the use of HBPM. Given differences in staff and patient perspectives, targeted interventions based on these responses may lead to improved use of HBPM, and ultimately enhance hypertension self-management and BP control in our CKD patients.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it