Orhan Acehan, Nafiz Bozdemir, Sevgi Özcan, Olgun Duran, Hatice Kurdak
{"title":"Group Medical Visits Versus Usual Care for Illness Perception and Hypertension: A Randomized Pilot Study.","authors":"Orhan Acehan, Nafiz Bozdemir, Sevgi Özcan, Olgun Duran, Hatice Kurdak","doi":"10.1097/JHQ.0000000000000359","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Despite separate evidence regarding illness perception (IP) and group medical visits (GMVs) for hypertension, research on both is limited. Here, we have assessed and compared the effectiveness of GMVs and usual care (UC) on IP and blood pressure (BP) in patients with hypertension. This was a two-group parallel randomized controlled study with 1:1 allocation. Patients with essential hypertension on antihypertensive medication and no cognitive impairments were screened for BP control status and eligibility. A web-based program randomly assigned them to the GMV and UC groups. Group medical visits were held once a month for 3 months. Primary and secondary outcome measures included improvements in IP and BP control. Among 152 participants, 40 and 43 were assigned to the GMV and UC groups, respectively. The control group had a 9.3% dropout rate. The chronic timeline and illness coherence improved significantly in the intervention group ( p < .01). Systolic BP in the intervention group decreased significantly compared with that of the control group (Δ: -18.8 ± 18.4 mm Hg vs. Δ: -10.6 ± 12.5 mm Hg, p = .025). The participation in GMVs had a significant association with the odds of an increase in BP regulation (OR 3.8, 95% confidence interval 1.4-10.3, p = .007). Therefore, GMVs may be feasible for BP control in hypertensive patients with similar characteristics.</p>","PeriodicalId":48801,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Healthcare Quality","volume":"45 1","pages":"27-37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for Healthcare Quality","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JHQ.0000000000000359","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract: Despite separate evidence regarding illness perception (IP) and group medical visits (GMVs) for hypertension, research on both is limited. Here, we have assessed and compared the effectiveness of GMVs and usual care (UC) on IP and blood pressure (BP) in patients with hypertension. This was a two-group parallel randomized controlled study with 1:1 allocation. Patients with essential hypertension on antihypertensive medication and no cognitive impairments were screened for BP control status and eligibility. A web-based program randomly assigned them to the GMV and UC groups. Group medical visits were held once a month for 3 months. Primary and secondary outcome measures included improvements in IP and BP control. Among 152 participants, 40 and 43 were assigned to the GMV and UC groups, respectively. The control group had a 9.3% dropout rate. The chronic timeline and illness coherence improved significantly in the intervention group ( p < .01). Systolic BP in the intervention group decreased significantly compared with that of the control group (Δ: -18.8 ± 18.4 mm Hg vs. Δ: -10.6 ± 12.5 mm Hg, p = .025). The participation in GMVs had a significant association with the odds of an increase in BP regulation (OR 3.8, 95% confidence interval 1.4-10.3, p = .007). Therefore, GMVs may be feasible for BP control in hypertensive patients with similar characteristics.
摘要:尽管高血压患者的疾病感知(IP)和集体就诊(gmv)有不同的证据,但对两者的研究都很有限。在这里,我们评估并比较了gmv和常规护理(UC)对高血压患者IP和血压(BP)的有效性。这是一项两组平行随机对照研究,1:1分配。对接受降压药治疗且无认知障碍的原发性高血压患者进行血压控制状态和资格筛查。一个基于网络的程序将他们随机分配到GMV和UC组。每月进行一次集体医疗访问,为期3个月。主要和次要结局指标包括IP和BP控制的改善。在152名参与者中,分别有40人和43人被分配到GMV组和UC组。对照组的辍学率为9.3%。干预组慢性时间线和疾病一致性显著改善(p < 0.01)。干预组收缩压较对照组明显降低(Δ: -18.8±18.4 mm Hg vs. Δ: -10.6±12.5 mm Hg, p = 0.025)。gmv的参与与血压调节增加的几率显著相关(OR 3.8, 95%置信区间1.4-10.3,p = 0.007)。因此,gmv可能适用于具有相似特征的高血压患者的血压控制。
期刊介绍:
The Journal for Healthcare Quality (JHQ), a peer-reviewed journal, is an official publication of the National Association for Healthcare Quality. JHQ is a professional forum that continuously advances healthcare quality practice in diverse and changing environments, and is the first choice for creative and scientific solutions in the pursuit of healthcare quality. It has been selected for coverage in Thomson Reuter’s Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index®, and Current Contents®.
The Journal publishes scholarly articles that are targeted to leaders of all healthcare settings, leveraging applied research and producing practical, timely and impactful evidence in healthcare system transformation. The journal covers topics such as:
Quality Improvement • Patient Safety • Performance Measurement • Best Practices in Clinical and Operational Processes • Innovation • Leadership • Information Technology • Spreading Improvement • Sustaining Improvement • Cost Reduction • Payment Reform