Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Patients’ preference for ambulatory versus home blood pressure monitoring

Abstract

Patient’s preference might influence compliance with antihypertensive treatment and thereby long-term blood pressure (BP) control. This study compared patients’ preference in using ambulatory (ABPM) versus home BP monitoring (HBPM). Subjects referred for hypertension were evaluated with 24-h ABPM and 7-day HBPM. Participants filled a questionnaire including demographics and Likert scale questions regarding their acceptance, preference, disturbance, activity restriction and feasibility of using ABPM and HBPM. A total of 119 patients were invited and 104 (87%) were included (mean age 51±11 years, 58% men, 38% time to work >8 h). A total of 82% reported a positive overall opinion for HBPM versus 63% for ABPM (P<0.05). 62% considered ABPM as more reliable than HBPM but 60% would choose HBPM for their next BP evaluation (P<0.05 for both comparisons). Moderate to severe discomfort from ABPM was reported by 55% and severe restriction of their daily activities by 30% compared with 13% and 7%, respectively, from HBPM (P<0.001 for both comparisons). The overall score for HBPM and ABPM (range 4–25; higher score indicating worse performance) was 6.6±2.5 and 10±4.0 (mean difference 4.4±4.6, P<0.001), respectively. In binary logistic regression models, neither previous experience with BP monitoring nor demographic characteristics appeared to influence patients’ preference. These data suggest that HBPM is superior to ABPM in terms of overall acceptance and preference by hypertensive patients. Patients’ preference deserves further research and should be taken into account in decision making in clinical practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Makoul G, Clayman ML . An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns 2006; 60: 301–312.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Coylewright M, Montori V, Ting HH . Patient-centered shared decision making: a public imperative. Am J Med 2012; 125: 545–547.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Reach G . A novel conceptual framework for understanding the mechanism of adherence to long term therapies. Patient Prefer Adherence 2008; 2: 7–19.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Ross S, Walker A, MacLeod MJ . Patient compliance in hypertension: role of illness perceptions and treatment beliefs. J Hum Hypertens 2004; 18: 607–613.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Heisler M, Cole I, Weir D, Kerr EA, Hayward RA . Does physician communication influence older patients' diabetes self-management and glycemic control? Results from the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2007; 62: 1435–1442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Kinnersley P et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med 2012; 27: 1361–1367.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Petrie KJ, Jago LA, Devich DA . The role of illness perceptions in patients with medical conditions. Curr Opin Psychiatr 2007; 20: 163e7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Aleem IS, Jalal H, Aleem IS, Sheikh AA . Bhandari. Clinical decision analysis: Incorporating the evidence with patient preferences. Patient Prefer Adherence 2009; 3: 21–24.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. United States Office of the Legislative Counsel. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act http://docs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf2010 Assessed 15 May 2013.

  10. Elwyn G, Laitner S, Coulter A, Walker E, Watson P, Thomson R . Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ 2010; 341: c5146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Legare F, Stacey D, Forest P-G . Shared decision-making in Canada: update, challenges and where next. Ger J Qual Health Care 2007; 101: 213–221.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mancia G, De Backer G, Dominiczak A, Cifkova R, Fagard R, Germano G et al. Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension; European Society of Cardiology. 2007 Guidelines for the Management of Arterial Hypertension: The Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). J Hypertens 2007; 25: 1105–1187.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. The Global Burden of Disease: 2004 Update. Geneva, Switzerland: WorldHealth Organization, 2008 http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/GBD_report_2004upda te_full.pdf, (Assessed 15 January 2013)..

  14. World health statistics 2012. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization 2012 http://www.who.int/healthinfo/EN_WHS2012_Full.pdf, (Assessed 15 January 2013).

  15. Calhoun DA, Jones D, Textor S, Goff DC, Murphy TP, Toto RD et al American Heart Association Professional Education Committee. Resistant hypertension: diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Professional Education Committee of the Council for High Blood Pressure Research. Circulation 2008; 117: e510–e526.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. O'Brien E, Asmar R, Beilin L, Imai Y, Mallion JM, Mancia G et al. European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring. European Society of Hypertension recommendations for conventional, ambulatory and home blood pressure measurement. J Hypertens 2003; 21: 821–848.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Parati G, Stergiou GS, Asmar R, Bilo G, de Leeuw P, Imai Y et al ESH Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring. European Society of Hypertension guidelines for blood pressure monitoring at home: a summary report of the Second International Consensus Conference on Home Blood Pressure Monitoring. J Hypertens 2008; 26: 1505–1526.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Stergiou GS, Bliziotis IA . Home blood pressure monitoring in the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension: a systematic review. Am J Hypertens 2011; 24: 123–134.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Stergiou GS, Siontis KC, Ioannidis JP . Home blood pressure as a cardiovascular outcome predictor: it's time to take this method seriously. Hypertension 2010; 55: 1301–1303.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ward AM, Takahashi O, Stevens R, Heneghan C . Home measurement of blood pressure and cardiovascular disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. J Hypertens 2012; 30: 449–456.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nasothimiou EG, Tzamouranis D, Rarra V, Roussias LG, Stergiou GS . Diagnostic accuracy of home vs. ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in untreated and treated hypertension. Hypertens Res 2012; 35: 750–755.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Little P, Barnett J, Barnsley L, Marjoram J, Fitzgerald-Barron A, Mant D . Comparison of acceptability of and preferences for different methods of measuring blood pressure in primary care. Br Med J 2002; 325: 358–359.

    Google Scholar 

  23. McGowan N, Padfield PL . Self blood pressure monitoring: a worthy substitute for ambulatory blood pressure? J Hum Hypertens 2010; 24: 801–806.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Beltman FW, Heesen WF, Smit AJ, May JF, Lie KI, Meyboom-de Jong B . Acceptance and side effects of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: evaluation of a new technology. J Hum Hypertens 1996; 10 (Suppl 3): S39–S42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Westhoff TH, Straub-Hohenbleicher H, Schmidt S, Tölle M, Zidek W, van der Giet M . Convenience of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: comparison of different devices. Blood Press Monit 2005; 10: 239–242.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. O'Brien E, Mee F, Atkins N, O'Malley K . Accuracy of the Spacelabs 90207 determined by to the British Hypertension Society Protocol. J Hypertens 1991; 9 (suppl 5): S25–S31.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Baumgart P, Kamp J . Accuracy of the Spacelabs Medical 90217 ambulatory blood pressure monitor. Blood Press Monit 1998; 3: 303–307.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ragazzo F, Saladini F, Palatini P . Validation of the Microlife WatchBP O3 device for clinic, home, and ambulatory blood pressure measurement, according to the International Protocol. Blood Press Monit 2010; 15: 59–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Stergiou GS, Tzamouranis D, Nasothimiou EG, Karpettas N, Protogerou A . Are there really differences between home and daytime ambulatory blood pressure? Comparison using a novel dual-mode ambulatory and home monitor. J Hum Hypertens 2010; 24: 207–212.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Stergiou GS, Giovas PP, Gkinos CP, Patouras JD . Validation of the Microlife WatchBP Home device for self home blood pressure measurement according to the International Protocol. Blood Press Monit 2007; 12: 185–188.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cappuccio FP, Kerry SM, Forbes L, Donald A . Blood pressure control by home monitoring: meta-analysis of randomised trials. Br Med J 2004; 329: 145–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. McManus RJ, Mant J, Bray EP, Holder R, Jones MI, Greenfield S et al. Telemonitoring and self-management in the control of hypertension (TASMINH2): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010; 376: 163–172.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bray EP, Holder R, Mant J, McManus RJ . Does self-monitoring reduce blood pressure? Meta-analysis with meta-regression of randomized controlled trials. Ann Med 2010; 42: 371–386.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Agarwal R, Bills JE, Hecht TJ, Light RP . Role of home blood pressure monitoring in overcoming therapeutic inertia and improving hypertension control: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hypertension 2011; 57: 29–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bhushan V, Saha G, Lindsen J, Shimojo S, Bhattacharya J . How we choose one over another: predicting trial-by-trial preference decision. PLoS One 2012; 7: e43351.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Ernst ME, Bergus GR . Favorable patient acceptance of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in a primary care setting in the United States: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Fam Pract 2003; 4: 15.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Aylett M, Marples G, Jones K . Home blood pressure monitoring: its effect on the management of hypertension in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 1999; 49: 725–728.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Cacciolati C, Tzourio C, Dufouil C, Alpérovitch A, Hanon O . Feasibility of home blood pressure measurement in elderly individuals: cross-sectional analysis of a population-based sample. Am J Hypertens 2012; 25: 1279–1285.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Jones MI, Greenfield SM, Bray EP, Baral-Grant S, Hobbs FD, Holder R et al. Patients' experiences of self-monitoring blood pressure and self-titration of medication: the TASMINH2 trial qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract 2012; 62: e135–e142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Some of the blood pressure monitors used in this study have been provided by Microlife, Widnau, Switzerland. Clinical trials registry: ClinicalTrials.gov (No) NCT00841308.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G S Stergiou.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

GS Stergiou has received consulting fees by Microlife, Widnau, Switzerland. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

These data were presented at the 21st Meeting of the European Society of Hypertension, Milan, Italy, 2011.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nasothimiou, E., Karpettas, N., Dafni, M. et al. Patients’ preference for ambulatory versus home blood pressure monitoring. J Hum Hypertens 28, 224–229 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/jhh.2013.104

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jhh.2013.104

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links