数字化高血压管理的远程监测和自我管理:是否有更好的方法?

IF 2.2 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
mHealth Pub Date : 2025-07-11 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.21037/mhealth-24-104
Nicolas Postel-Vinay, Roland Asmar, Olivier Steichen
{"title":"数字化高血压管理的远程监测和自我管理:是否有更好的方法?","authors":"Nicolas Postel-Vinay, Roland Asmar, Olivier Steichen","doi":"10.21037/mhealth-24-104","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Given the rise of telemonitoring and self-management, experts debate the respective advantages and disadvantages of these two approaches. To date, no study has directly compared the efficiency or cost-effectiveness of blood pressure (BP) telemonitoring initiated and supervised by healthcare professionals (HCPs) and self-management of patients autonomously following a prespecified plan, but both have been compared to standard in-office BP management. A 2017 meta-analysis showed that telemonitoring leads to faster BP reduction and a higher rate of patients reaching their BP target than standard care. A 2023 meta-analysis found that digital health intervention to assist patients, such as short message services (SMS), smartphone apps, and websites, led to a larger BP decrease compared to usual care but the high variability in study designs and potential biases temper these results. Currently, the evidence supporting self-management for BP control is less compelling than for telemonitoring. But clinical trials may not fully reflect real-world scenarios. Economic evaluations have not clearly shown that telemonitoring is more cost-effective than standard care. In some studies, healthcare costs were even higher in the telemonitoring group, although this must be weighed against the benefits. On the opposite, some digital self-management tools do not collect identifiable user information, therefore face fewer regulatory constraints, and finally are less costly. Telemonitoring requires significant involvement and time to devote from HCPs to manage data and respond to alerts, raising concerns about increased workload. On the opposite, self-management <i>vs.</i> telemonitoring reduces the workload for HCPs because patients manage their own BP readings and interactions with digital tools autonomously. Another critical aspect to consider is the relationship between patients and HCPs, which differs greatly between telemonitoring and self-management. However, we still lack a full understanding of patient and HCP expectations regarding autonomy and monitoring. The 2023 European Society of Hypertension (ESH) guidelines now endorse digital interventions and self-titration algorithms. There are many differences between self-managing and telemonitoring to claim that one is superior to the other. A more constructive approach is to explore how they can complement each other.</p>","PeriodicalId":74181,"journal":{"name":"mHealth","volume":"11 ","pages":"40"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12314696/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Telemonitoring and self-management for digital hypertension management: is there a preferred method?\",\"authors\":\"Nicolas Postel-Vinay, Roland Asmar, Olivier Steichen\",\"doi\":\"10.21037/mhealth-24-104\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Given the rise of telemonitoring and self-management, experts debate the respective advantages and disadvantages of these two approaches. To date, no study has directly compared the efficiency or cost-effectiveness of blood pressure (BP) telemonitoring initiated and supervised by healthcare professionals (HCPs) and self-management of patients autonomously following a prespecified plan, but both have been compared to standard in-office BP management. A 2017 meta-analysis showed that telemonitoring leads to faster BP reduction and a higher rate of patients reaching their BP target than standard care. A 2023 meta-analysis found that digital health intervention to assist patients, such as short message services (SMS), smartphone apps, and websites, led to a larger BP decrease compared to usual care but the high variability in study designs and potential biases temper these results. Currently, the evidence supporting self-management for BP control is less compelling than for telemonitoring. But clinical trials may not fully reflect real-world scenarios. Economic evaluations have not clearly shown that telemonitoring is more cost-effective than standard care. In some studies, healthcare costs were even higher in the telemonitoring group, although this must be weighed against the benefits. On the opposite, some digital self-management tools do not collect identifiable user information, therefore face fewer regulatory constraints, and finally are less costly. Telemonitoring requires significant involvement and time to devote from HCPs to manage data and respond to alerts, raising concerns about increased workload. On the opposite, self-management <i>vs.</i> telemonitoring reduces the workload for HCPs because patients manage their own BP readings and interactions with digital tools autonomously. Another critical aspect to consider is the relationship between patients and HCPs, which differs greatly between telemonitoring and self-management. However, we still lack a full understanding of patient and HCP expectations regarding autonomy and monitoring. The 2023 European Society of Hypertension (ESH) guidelines now endorse digital interventions and self-titration algorithms. There are many differences between self-managing and telemonitoring to claim that one is superior to the other. A more constructive approach is to explore how they can complement each other.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74181,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"mHealth\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"40\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12314696/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"mHealth\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21037/mhealth-24-104\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"mHealth","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/mhealth-24-104","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

鉴于远程监控和自我管理的兴起,专家们对这两种方法各自的优缺点进行了辩论。到目前为止,还没有研究直接比较由医疗保健专业人员(HCPs)发起和监督的血压(BP)远程监测与患者自主按照预先规定的计划进行自我管理的效率或成本效益,但两者都与标准的办公室血压管理进行了比较。2017年的一项荟萃分析显示,与标准治疗相比,远程监测可以更快地降低血压,并且患者达到血压目标的比率更高。2023年的一项荟萃分析发现,与常规护理相比,帮助患者的数字健康干预,如短信服务(SMS)、智能手机应用程序和网站,导致血压下降幅度更大,但研究设计的高度可变性和潜在的偏差缓和了这些结果。目前,支持BP控制的自我管理的证据不如远程监测那么令人信服。但临床试验可能不能完全反映现实世界的情况。经济评估并没有明确表明远程监测比标准护理更具成本效益。在一些研究中,远程监护组的医疗成本甚至更高,尽管这必须与好处进行权衡。相反,一些数字自我管理工具不收集可识别的用户信息,因此面临较少的监管约束,最终成本更低。远程监控需要医护人员投入大量的时间来管理数据和响应警报,这增加了工作量的担忧。相反,自我管理与远程监测减少了HCPs的工作量,因为患者可以自主管理自己的血压读数并与数字工具进行交互。另一个需要考虑的关键方面是患者和医护人员之间的关系,这在远程监测和自我管理之间有很大的不同。然而,我们仍然缺乏对患者和HCP对自主和监测的期望的充分了解。2023年欧洲高血压学会(ESH)指南现在支持数字干预和自我滴定算法。自我管理和远程监控之间存在许多差异,因此声称一个优于另一个。更有建设性的方法是探索它们如何相互补充。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Telemonitoring and self-management for digital hypertension management: is there a preferred method?

Given the rise of telemonitoring and self-management, experts debate the respective advantages and disadvantages of these two approaches. To date, no study has directly compared the efficiency or cost-effectiveness of blood pressure (BP) telemonitoring initiated and supervised by healthcare professionals (HCPs) and self-management of patients autonomously following a prespecified plan, but both have been compared to standard in-office BP management. A 2017 meta-analysis showed that telemonitoring leads to faster BP reduction and a higher rate of patients reaching their BP target than standard care. A 2023 meta-analysis found that digital health intervention to assist patients, such as short message services (SMS), smartphone apps, and websites, led to a larger BP decrease compared to usual care but the high variability in study designs and potential biases temper these results. Currently, the evidence supporting self-management for BP control is less compelling than for telemonitoring. But clinical trials may not fully reflect real-world scenarios. Economic evaluations have not clearly shown that telemonitoring is more cost-effective than standard care. In some studies, healthcare costs were even higher in the telemonitoring group, although this must be weighed against the benefits. On the opposite, some digital self-management tools do not collect identifiable user information, therefore face fewer regulatory constraints, and finally are less costly. Telemonitoring requires significant involvement and time to devote from HCPs to manage data and respond to alerts, raising concerns about increased workload. On the opposite, self-management vs. telemonitoring reduces the workload for HCPs because patients manage their own BP readings and interactions with digital tools autonomously. Another critical aspect to consider is the relationship between patients and HCPs, which differs greatly between telemonitoring and self-management. However, we still lack a full understanding of patient and HCP expectations regarding autonomy and monitoring. The 2023 European Society of Hypertension (ESH) guidelines now endorse digital interventions and self-titration algorithms. There are many differences between self-managing and telemonitoring to claim that one is superior to the other. A more constructive approach is to explore how they can complement each other.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信