Home blood pressure monitoring in hypertensive patients with chronic kidney disease

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e48
Author(s):  
Xiaojing Ye ◽  
Alejandro Negrete ◽  
William N. Davis ◽  
Salman T. Shafi ◽  
Andi M. Negrete ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Zheng ◽  
Yamin Wang ◽  
Wenbo Zhao ◽  
Huiqun Li ◽  
Hongli Shang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) has been proved to be beneficial to blood pressure control for both patients with hypertension and patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, what are the psychodynamic predictors like perception for the establishment and persistence of HBPM have not been deeply explored, and there is a lack of instruments for assessing psychodynamic characteristics on HBPM from patients’ perspectives, which has limited the in-depth understanding of HBPM behavior. The study aimed to develop an instrument for evaluating HBPM perception in patients with CKD, and to test the reliability and validity of the instrument. Methods: The original item pool of the HBPM perception scale was developed according to the framework of the health promotion model and literature review. The psychometric characteristics of the instrument were examined with a sample of 436 CKD patients in China. Internal consistency reliability, split-half reliability, test-retest reliability and construct reliability were used to verify the reliability of the scale. And content validity, construct validity and criterion-related validity were used to test the validity of the scale.Results: The expert consultation showed satisfactory content validity of the HBPM perception scale and produced a first draft of the survey with 43 items. By exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), we found evidence for the construct validity of the following factors: perceived benefits of HBPM, perceived barriers of HBPM, perceived self-efficacy of HBPM, situational influences and commitment to a plan of HBPM, and immediate competing demands and preferences. The finalized five-component HBPM perception scale has 27 items. CFA suggested the model fit the data well (ꭓ2=679.649, df=310, ꭓ2/df=2.192, root mean square error of approximation =0.074, confirmatory fit index=0.902). The HBPM perception scale was positively associated with the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease 6-item Scale ( r= 0.256, p<0.001). The Cronbach’s α coefficient of all dimensions was above 0.750, the split-half reliability was above 0.624, and the test-retest reliability was above 0.749. The construct reliability of dimensions ranged from 0.749 to 0.951. Conclusion Given reasonable psychometric properties, the HBPM perception scale is a valid and reliable instrument that can be used to assess the perception of HBPM.


2016 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 239-242
Author(s):  
Annamária Magdás ◽  
Boglárka Belényi ◽  
Adina Gaburoi ◽  
Alexandru Incze

AbstractBackground: A number of studies reveal that home blood pressure variability is associated with cardiovascular risk factors. However, we do not have a consensus regarding the variability index and the frequency of measurements.Objective: The aim of the study was to assess home blood pressure variability for a period of 7 consecutive days and 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure variability using the average real variability index and to test whether home blood pressure variability represents a suitable parameter for long-term monitoring of the hypertensive patients.Material and methods: A number of 31 hypertensive patients were included in the study, 8 male, 23 female, mean age 60.19±7.35 years. At the inclusion ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was performed, home blood pressure monitoring was carried out for 7 consecutive days with 2 measurements daily. We compared ambulatory blood pressure values, variability using paired t-test. We were looking for correlations between HBP values and cardiovascular risk factors.Results: Ambulatory versus home blood pressure derived mean blood pressure was 131.38±15.2 versus 131.93±8.25, p=0.81. Ambulatory derived variability was 10.65±2.05 versus home variability 10.56±4.83, p=0.91. Home versus ambulatory pulse pressure was 51.8± 9.06 mmHg vs. 54.9±11.9 mmHg, p=0.046. We found positive correlation between HBPV and home BP values, p=0.027, r2=0.1577, (CI: 0.04967 to 0.6588). Home, as well as ambulatory derived variability were positively correlated to age p=0.043, r2=0.1377 (CI: 0.01234 to 0.6451) versus p<0.0001, CI: 0.3870 to 0.8220, r2=0.4302.Conclusion: Assessment of home blood pressure monitoring and variability could represent a well-tolerated alternative for long-term follow-up of hypertension management.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-447
Author(s):  
Paraskevi Savvari ◽  
Helen Triantafyllidi ◽  
John Skiadas ◽  
Petros Kalogeropoulos ◽  
Damianos Menegas ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document