Barriers and facilitators to use of digital health tools by healthcare practitioners and their patients, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a multimethods study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore how healthcare practitioners (HCPs) made decisions about the implementation of digital health technologies (DHTs) in their clinical practice before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: A multimethods study, comprising semistructured interviews conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, supplemented with an online survey that was conducted during the pandemic with a different sample, to ensure the qualitative findings remained relevant within the rapidly changing healthcare context. Participants were recruited through HCP networks, snowballing and social media. Data were analysed thematically. SETTING: Phone interviews and online survey. PARTICIPANTS: HCPs represented a range of professions from primary and secondary care across England, with varied socioeconomic deprivation. RESULTS: 24 HCPs were interviewed, and 16 HCPs responded to the survey. In the interviews, HCPs described three levels where decisions were made, which determined who would have access to what DHTs: health organisation, HCP and patient levels. These decisions resulted in the unequal implementation of DHTs across health services, created barriers for HCPs using DHTs in their practice and influenced HCPs' decisions on which patients to supply DHTs with. In the survey, HCPs described being provided support to overcome some of the barriers at the organisation and HCP level during the pandemic. However, they cited similar concerns to pre-pandemic about barriers patients faced using DHTs (eg, digital literacy). In the absence of centralised guidance on how to manage these barriers, health services made their own decisions about how to adapt their services for those who struggled with DHTs. CONCLUSIONS: Decision-making at the health organisation, HCP and patient levels influences inequalities in access to DHTs for HCPs and patients. The mobilisation of centralised information and resources during the pandemic can be viewed as good practice for reducing barriers to use of DHTs for HCPs. However, attention must also be paid to reducing barriers to accessing DHTs for patients.

An atypical case of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in a patient with high grade B-cell lymphoma causing diagnostic delay.

Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) is a rare disease of the central nervous system caused by opportunistic infection with JC virus. It presents in patients who are immunocompromised, and diagnosis is made by correlating clinical findings and radiological changes with the detection of JC virus in cerebrospinal fluid. Rarely, a brain biopsy is needed. A 72 year old with high grade B-cell lymphoma developed right arm weakness and limb ataxia shortly after his diagnosis. CNS involvement was excluded with a normal CT head, MRI brain/spine, and CSF examination. A paraneoplastic cause was suspected, and he received 5 cycles of Rituximab-containing chemotherapy to a complete metabolic remission. His neurology evolved during treatment despite serial MRI and CSF examination remaining normal. CSF and serum were both negative for JC virus by PCR. Following completion of chemotherapy, he deteriorated acutely with seizures and personality changes. It was only at this point that a repeat MRI showed new multiple scattered ring enhancing lesions within both cerebral hemispheres. The patient underwent a brain biopsy confirming JC virus positive-PML by immunohistochemistry and passed away one month later. This case illustrates the diagnostic challenges associated with PML and had several atypical features which led to diagnostic delay, specifically the onset of symptoms before starting immunochemotherapy, and the lack of radiological change despite evolving neurology. The eventual MRI abnormalities were not altogether classical for PML which, coupled with the JC-negativity in CSF and serum, meant a brain biopsy was required to reach the diagnosis.

Toward Enhanced Clinical Decision Support for Patients Undergoing a Hip or Knee Replacement: Focus Group and Interview Study With Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: The current assessment of recovery after total hip or knee replacement is largely based on the measurement of health outcomes through self-report and clinical observations at follow-up appointments in clinical settings. Home activity-based monitoring may improve assessment of recovery by enabling the collection of more holistic information on a continuous basis. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to introduce orthopedic surgeons to time-series analyses of patient activity data generated from a platform of sensors deployed in the homes of patients who have undergone primary total hip or knee replacement and understand the potential role of these data in postoperative clinical decision-making. METHODS: Orthopedic surgeons and registrars were recruited through a combination of convenience and snowball sampling. Inclusion criteria were a minimum required experience in total joint replacement surgery specific to the hip or knee or familiarity with postoperative recovery assessment. Exclusion criteria included a lack of specific experience in the field. Of the 9 approached participants, 6 (67%) orthopedic surgeons and 3 (33%) registrars took part in either 1 of 3 focus groups or 1 of 2 interviews. Data were collected using an action-based approach in which stimulus materials (mock data visualizations) provided imaginative and creative interactions with the data. The data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Each data visualization was presented sequentially followed by a discussion of key illustrative commentary from participants, ending with a summary of key themes emerging across the focus group and interview data set. CONCLUSIONS: The limitations of the evidence are as follows. The data presented are from 1 English hospital. However, all data reflect the views of surgeons following standard national approaches and training. Although convenience sampling was used, participants' background, skills, and experience were considered heterogeneous. Passively collected home monitoring data offered a real opportunity to more objectively characterize patients' recovery from surgery. However, orthopedic surgeons highlighted the considerable difficulty in navigating large amounts of complex data within short medical consultations with patients. Orthopedic surgeons thought that a proposed dashboard presenting information and decision support alerts would fit best with existing clinical workflows. From this, the following guidelines for system design were developed: minimize the risk of misinterpreting data, express a level of confidence in the data, support clinicians in developing relevant skills as time-series data are often unfamiliar, and consider the impact of patient engagement with data in the future. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021862.

Public attitudes towards the use of novel technologies in their future healthcare: a UK survey.

BACKGROUND: Innovation in healthcare technologies can result in more convenient and effective treatment that is less costly, but a persistent challenge to widespread adoption in health and social care is end user acceptability. The purpose of this study was to capture UK public opinions and attitudes to novel healthcare technologies (NHTs), and to better understand the factors that contribute to acceptance and future use. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to the UK public between April and May 2020. Respondents received brief information about four novel healthcare technologies (NHTs) in development: a laser-based tool for early diagnosis of osteoarthritis, a virtual reality tool to support diabetes self-management, a non-invasive continuous glucose monitor using microwave signals, a mobile app for patient reported monitoring of rheumatoid arthritis. They were queried on their general familiarity and attitudes to technology, and their willingness to accept each NHT in their future care. Responses were analysed using summary statistics and content analysis. RESULTS: Knowledge about NHTs was diverse, with respondents being more aware about the health applications of mobile apps (66%), followed by laser-based technology (63.8%), microwave signalling (28%), and virtual reality (18.3%). Increasing age and the presence of a self-reported medical condition favoured acceptability for some NHTs, whereas self-reported understanding of how the NHT works resulted in elevated acceptance scores across all NHTs presented. Common contributors to hesitancy were safety and risks from use. Respondents wanted more information and evidence to help inform their decisions, ideally provided verbally by a general practitioner or health professional. Other concerns, such as privacy, were NHT-specific but equally important in decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Early insight into the knowledge and preconceptions of the public about NHTs in development can assist their design and prospectively mitigate obstacles to acceptance and adoption.

Accuracy of blood-pressure monitors owned by patients with hypertension (ACCU-RATE study): a cross-sectional, observational study in central England.

BACKGROUND: Home blood-pressure (BP) monitoring is recommended in guidelines and is increasingly popular with patients and health professionals, but the accuracy of patients' own monitors in real-world use is not known. AIM: To assess the accuracy of home BP monitors used by people with hypertension, and to investigate factors affecting accuracy. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional, observational study in urban and suburban settings in central England. METHOD: Patients (n = 6891) on the hypertension register at seven practices in the West Midlands, England, were surveyed to ascertain whether they owned a BP monitor and wanted it tested. Monitor accuracy was compared with a calibrated reference device at 50 mmHg intervals between 0-280/300 mmHg (static pressure test); a difference from the reference monitor of +/-3 mmHg at any interval was considered a failure. Cuff performance was also assessed. Results were analysed by frequency of use, length of time in service, make and model, monitor validation status, purchase price, and any previous testing. RESULTS: In total, 251 (76%, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 71 to 80%) of 331 tested devices passed all tests (monitors and cuffs), and 86% (CI] = 82 to 90%) passed the static pressure test; deficiencies were, primarily, because of monitors overestimating BP. A total of 40% of testable monitors were not validated. The pass rate on the static pressure test was greater in validated monitors (96%, 95% CI = 94 to 98%) versus unvalidated monitors (64%, 95% CI = 58 to 69%), those retailing for >£10 (90%, 95% CI = 86 to 94%), those retailing for ≤£10 (66%, 95% CI = 51 to 80%), those in use for ≤4 years (95%, 95% CI = 91 to 98%), and those in use for >4 years (74%, 95% CI = 67 to 82%). All in all, 12% of cuffs failed. CONCLUSION: Patients' own BP monitor failure rate was similar to that demonstrated in studies performed in professional settings, although cuff failure was more frequent. Clinicians can be confident of the accuracy of patients' own BP monitors if the devices are validated and ≤4 years old.

Modelling Patient Behaviour Using IoT Sensor Data: a Case Study to Evaluate Techniques for Modelling Domestic Behaviour in Recovery from Total Hip Replacement Surgery.

The UK health service sees around 160,000 total hip or knee replacements every year and this number is expected to rise with an ageing population. Expectations of surgical outcomes are changing alongside demographic trends, whilst aftercare may be fractured as a result of resource limitations. Conventional assessments of health outcomes must evolve to keep up with these changing trends. Health outcomes may be assessed largely by self-report using Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), such as the Oxford Hip or Oxford Knee Score, in the months up to and following surgery. Though widely used, many PROMs have methodological limitations and there is debate about how to interpret results and definitions of clinically meaningful change. With the development of a home-monitoring system, there is opportunity to characterise the relationship between PROMs and behaviour in a natural setting and to develop methods of passive monitoring of outcome and recovery after surgery. In this paper, we discuss the motivation and technology used in long-term continuous observation of movement, sleep and domestic routine for healthcare applications, such as the HEmiSPHERE project for hip and knee replacement patients. In this case study, we evaluate trends evident in data of two patients, collected over a 3-month observation period post-surgery, by comparison with scores from PROMs for sleep and movement quality, and by comparison with a third control home. We find that accelerometer and indoor localisation data correctly highlight long-term trends in sleep and movement quality and can be used to predict sleep and wake times and measure sleep and wake routine variance over time, whilst indoor localisation provides context for the domestic routine and mobility of the patient. Finally, we discuss a visual method of sharing findings with healthcare professionals.

Home health monitoring around the time of surgery: qualitative study of patients' experiences before and after joint replacement.

OBJECTIVES: Hip and knee replacements are common major elective surgical interventions with over 200 000 performed annually in the UK. Not all patients achieve optimal outcomes or experience problems or delays in recovery. The number of patients needing these operations is set to increase, and routine clinical monitoring is time-consuming and resource-consuming for patients and healthcare providers; therefore, innovative evaluation of surgical outcomes is needed. The aim of this qualitative study was to capture the patient experience of living with a novel home monitoring sensing system during the period around joint replacement. SETTING: One secondary care hospital in the South West, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 13 patients (8 female, 63-89 years) undergoing total hip or knee replacement enrolled into the study. DESIGN: Qualitative study with thematic analysis. The system remained in situ for up to 12 weeks after their surgery and comprised a group of low-powered sensors monitoring the environment (temperature, light and humidity) and activity of people within the home. Patients were interviewed at two timepoints: before and after surgery. Interviews explored views about living with the technology, its acceptability, as well as attitudes towards health technology. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged: installation of home-sensing technology on the journey to surgery, the home space and defining unobtrusiveness and pivotal role of social support networks. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who agreed to the technology found living with it acceptable. A home-sensing system that monitors the environment and activity of the people in the home could provide an innovative way of assessing patients' surgical outcomes. At a time characterised by reduced mobility, functional limitations and increased pain, patients in this study relied on informal and formal supportive networks to help maintain the system through the busy trajectory of the perioperative period.

Using mHealth for the management of hypertension in UK primary care: an embedded qualitative study of the TASMINH4 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring of blood pressure is common but how telemonitoring with a mobile healthcare (mHealth) solution in the management of hypertension can be implemented by patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) is currently unclear. AIM: Evaluation of facilitators and barriers to self- and telemonitoring interventions for hypertension within the Telemonitoring and Self-monitoring in Hypertension (TASMINH4) trial. DESIGN AND SETTING: An embedded process evaluation of the TASMINH4 randomised controlled trial (RCT), in the West Midlands, in UK primary care, conducted between March 2015 and September 2016. METHOD: A total of 40 participants comprising 23 patients were randomised to one of two arms: mHealth (self-monitoring by free text/short message service [SMS]) and self-monitoring without mHealth (self-monitoring using paper diaries). There were also15 healthcare professionals (HCPs) and two patient caregivers. RESULTS: Four key implementation priority areas concerned: acceptability of self- and telemonitoring to patients and HCPs; managing data; communication; and integrating self-monitoring into hypertension management (structured care). Structured home monitoring engaged and empowered patients to self-monitor regardless of the use of mHealth, whereas telemonitoring potentially facilitated more rapid communication between HCPs and patients. Paper-based recording integrated better into current workflows but required additional staff input. CONCLUSION: Although telemonitoring by mHealth facilitates easier communication and convenience, the realities of current UK general practice meant that a paper-based approach to self-monitoring could be integrated into existing workflows with greater ease. Self-monitoring should be offered to all patients with hypertension. Telemonitoring appears to give additional benefits to practices over and above self-monitoring but both need to be offered to ensure generalisability.

Cost-Effectiveness of Telemonitoring and Self-Monitoring of Blood Pressure for Antihypertensive Titration in Primary Care (TASMINH4).

The use of self-monitoring of blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring, to guide therapy decisions by physicians for patients with hypertension has been recently demonstrated to reduce blood pressure compared with using clinic monitoring (usual care). However, both the cost-effectiveness of these strategies compared with usual care, and whether the additional benefit of telemonitoring compared with self-monitoring alone could be considered value for money, are unknown. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of physician titration of antihypertensive medication using self-monitored blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring, to make hypertension treatment decisions in primary care compared with usual care. A Markov patient-level simulation model was developed taking a UK Health Service/Personal Social Services perspective. The model adopted a lifetime time horizon with 6-month time cycles. At a willingness to pay of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life year, self-monitoring plus telemonitoring was the most cost-effective strategy (£17 424 per quality-adjusted life year gained) compared with usual care or self-monitoring alone (posting the results to the physician). However, deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that self-monitoring alone became the most cost-effective option when changing key assumptions around long-term effectiveness and time horizon. Overall, probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggested that self-monitoring regardless of transmission modality was likely to be cost-effective compared with usual care (89% probability of cost-effectiveness at £20 000/quality-adjusted life year), with high uncertainty as to whether telemonitoring or self-monitoring alone was the most cost-effective option. Self-monitoring in clinical practice is cost-effective and likely to lead to reduced cardiovascular mortality and morbidity.

Schedules for Self-monitoring Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring of blood pressure better predicts prognosis than clinic measurement, is popular with patients, and endorsed in hypertension guidelines. However, there is uncertainty over the optimal self-monitoring schedule. We therefore aimed to determine the optimum schedule to predict future cardiovascular events and determine "true" underlying blood pressure. METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched from November 2009 (updating a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] systematic review) to April 2017. Studies that compared aspects of self-monitoring schedules to either prognosis or reliability/reproducibility in hypertensive adults were included. Data on study and population characteristics, self-monitoring regime, and outcomes were extracted by 2 reviewers independently. RESULTS: From 5,164 unique articles identified, 25 met the inclusion criteria. Twelve studies were included from the original NICE review, making a total of 37 studies. Increasing the number of days of measurement improved prognostic power: 72%-91% of the theoretical maximum predictive value (asymptotic maximum hazard ratio) was reached by 3 days and 86%-96% by 7 days. Increasing beyond 3 days of measurement did not result in better correlation with ambulatory monitoring. There was no convincing evidence that the timing or number of readings per day had an effect, or that ignoring the first day's measurement was necessary. CONCLUSIONS: Home blood pressure should be measured for 3 days, increased to 7 only when mean blood pressure is close to a diagnostic or treatment threshold. Other aspects of a monitoring schedule can be flexible to facilitate patient uptake of and adherence with self-monitoring.

Patient experience of home and waiting room blood pressure measurement: a qualitative study of patients with recently diagnosed hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-office blood pressure (BP) measurement is advocated to confirm hypertension diagnosis. However, little is known about how primary care patients view and use such measurement. AIM: To investigate patient experience of out-of-office BP monitoring, particularly home and practice waiting room BP measurement, before, during, and after diagnosis. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional, qualitative study with patients from two UK GP surgeries participating in a feasibility study of waiting room BP measurement. METHOD: Interviewees were identified from recent additions to the practice hypertension register. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded thematically. RESULTS: Of 29 interviewees, 9 (31%) and 22 (76%) had used the waiting room monitor and/or monitored at home respectively. Out-of-office monitoring was used by patients as evidence of control or the lack of need for medication, with the printed results slips from the waiting room monitor perceived to improve 'trustworthiness'. The waiting room monitor enabled those experiencing uncertainty about their equipment or technique to double-check readings. Monitoring at home allowed a more intensive and/or flexible schedule to investigate BP fluctuations and the impact of medication and lifestyle changes. A minority used self-monitoring to inform drug holidays. Reduced intensity of monitoring was reported with both modalities following diagnosis as initial anxiety or patient and GP interest decreased. CONCLUSION: Home and practice waiting room measurements have overlapping but differing roles for patients. Waiting room BP monitors may be a useful out-of-office measurement modality for patients unwilling and/or unable to measure and record their BP at home.

Using home sensing technology to assess outcome and recovery after hip and knee replacement in the UK: the HEmiSPHERE study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Over 160 000 people with severe hip or knee pain caused by osteoarthritis undergo total hip (THR) or knee replacement (TKR) surgery each year in the UK within the National Health Service (NHS), and this number is expected to increase. Innovative approaches to evaluating surgical outcomes will be needed to respond to the increasing burden of joint replacement surgery. The Sensor Platform for Healthcare in a Residential Environment, Interdisciplinary Research Collaboration (SPHERE-IRC) have developed a system of sensors that can monitor the health-related behaviours of people living at home. The system includes sensors for the home environment (measuring temperature, humidity, room occupancy, water and electricity usage), a wristband body-worn activity monitor and silhouette (body outline) sensors. The aim of HEmiSPHERE (Hip and knEe study of a Sensor Platform of HEalthcare in a Residential Environment) is to (1) determine the accuracy and feasibility of the sensory data as it compares with conventional assessment of health outcomes after surgery using patient self-reported questionnaires, and (2) to explore how the SPHERE system is useful for everyday clinical decision-making. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A feasibility study recruiting and installing the SPHERE system in the homes of up to 30 NHS adult patients as they undergo a THR or TKR. Through a mixed-methods design, the SPHERE system will monitor and record continuous measurements of daily behaviour. Main outcomes will assess the relationships between environmental, behavioural and movement data and the parameters of interest from the standard clinical assessments measuring patient outcomes over time. Patient interviews and focus groups with consultant orthopaedic surgeons will provide in-depth understanding of the acceptability, feasibility and accuracy of the data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We aim to disseminate the findings through regional talks and seminars, international conferences and peer-reviewed journals and social media.

Efficacy of self-monitored blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring, for titration of antihypertensive medication (TASMINH4): an unmasked randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating titration of antihypertensive medication using self-monitoring give contradictory findings and the precise place of telemonitoring over self-monitoring alone is unclear. The TASMINH4 trial aimed to assess the efficacy of self-monitored blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring, for antihypertensive titration in primary care, compared with usual care. METHODS: This study was a parallel randomised controlled trial done in 142 general practices in the UK, and included hypertensive patients older than 35 years, with blood pressure higher than 140/90 mm Hg, who were willing to self-monitor their blood pressure. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to self-monitoring blood pressure (self-montoring group), to self-monitoring blood pressure with telemonitoring (telemonitoring group), or to usual care (clinic blood pressure; usual care group). Randomisation was by a secure web-based system. Neither participants nor investigators were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was clinic measured systolic blood pressure at 12 months from randomisation. Primary analysis was of available cases. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN 83571366. FINDINGS: 1182 participants were randomly assigned to the self-monitoring group (n=395), the telemonitoring group (n=393), or the usual care group (n=394), of whom 1003 (85%) were included in the primary analysis. After 12 months, systolic blood pressure was lower in both intervention groups compared with usual care (self-monitoring, 137·0 [SD 16·7] mm Hg and telemonitoring, 136·0 [16·1] mm Hg vs usual care, 140·4 [16·5]; adjusted mean differences vs usual care: self-monitoring alone, -3·5 mm Hg [95% CI -5·8 to -1·2]; telemonitoring, -4·7 mm Hg [-7·0 to -2·4]). No difference between the self-monitoring and telemonitoring groups was recorded (adjusted mean difference -1·2 mm Hg [95% CI -3·5 to 1·2]). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses including multiple imputation. Adverse events were similar between all three groups. INTERPRETATION: Self-monitoring, with or without telemonitoring, when used by general practitioners to titrate antihypertensive medication in individuals with poorly controlled blood pressure, leads to significantly lower blood pressure than titration guided by clinic readings. With most general practitioners and many patients using self-monitoring, it could become the cornerstone of hypertension management in primary care. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research via Programme Grant for Applied Health Research (RP-PG-1209-10051), Professorship to RJM (NIHR-RP-R2-12-015), Oxford Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, and Omron Healthcare UK.

Patient use of blood pressure self-screening facilities in general practice waiting rooms: a qualitative study in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure (BP) self-screening, whereby members of the public have access to BP monitoring equipment outside of healthcare consultations, may increase the detection and treatment of hypertension. Currently in the UK such opportunities are largely confined to GP waiting rooms. AIM: To investigate the reasons why people do or do not use BP self-screening facilities. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional, qualitative study in Oxfordshire, UK. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews with members of the general public recruited using posters in GP surgeries and community locations were recorded, transcribed, and coded thematically. RESULTS: Of the 30 interviewees, 20% were hypertensive and almost half had self-screened. Those with no history of elevated readings had limited concern over their BP: self-screening filled the time waiting for their appointment or was done to help their doctor. Patients with hypertension self-screened to avoid the feelings they associated with 'white coat syndrome' and to introduce more control into the measurement process. Barriers to self-screening included a lack of awareness, uncertainty about technique, and worries over measuring BP in a public place. An unanticipated finding was that several interviewees preferred monitoring their BP in the waiting room than at home. CONCLUSION: BP self-screening appeared acceptable to service users. Further promotion and education could increase awareness among non-users of the need for BP screening, the existence of self-screening facilities, and its ease of use. Waiting room monitors could provide an alternative for patients with hypertension who are unwilling or unable to monitor at home.

Telemonitoring and/or self-monitoring of blood pressure in hypertension (TASMINH4): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring of hypertension is associated with lower systolic blood pressure (SBP). However, evidence for the use of self-monitoring to titrate antihypertensive medication by physicians is equivocal. Furthermore, there is some evidence for the efficacy of telemonitoring in the management of hypertension but it is not clear what this adds over and above self-monitoring. This trial aims to evaluate whether GP led antihypertensive titration using self-monitoring results in lower SBP compared to usual care and whether telemonitoring adds anything to self-monitoring alone. METHODS/DESIGN: This will be a pragmatic primary care based, unblinded, randomised controlled trial of self-monitoring of BP with or without telemonitoring compared to usual care. Eligible patients will have poorly controlled hypertension (>140/90 mmHg) and will be recruited from primary care. Participants will be individually randomised to either usual care, self-monitoring alone, or self-monitoring with telemonitoring. The primary outcome of the trial will be difference in clinic SBP between intervention and control groups at 12 months adjusted for baseline SBP, gender, BP target and practice. At least 1110 patients will be sufficient to detect a difference in SBP between self-monitoring with or without telemonitoring and usual care of 5 mmHg with 90% power with an adjusted alpha of 0.017 (2-sided) to adjust for all three pairwise comparisons. Other outcomes will include adherence of anti-hypertensive medication, lifestyle behaviours, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. An economic analysis will consider both within trial costs and a model extrapolating the results thereafter. A qualitative sub study will gain insights into the views, experiences and decision making processes of patients and health care professionals focusing on the acceptability of self-monitoring and telemonitoring in the routine management of hypertension. DISCUSSION: The results of the trial will be directly applicable to primary care in the UK. If successful, self-monitoring of BP in people with hypertension would be applicable to hundreds of thousands of individuals in the UK. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 83571366 . Registered 17 July 2014.

Hepatitis B: A cross-sectional survey of knowledge, attitudes and practices amongst backpackers in Thailand.

BACKGROUND: In 2013, 200 million tourists visited countries that are endemic for hepatitis B virus (HBV). Backpackers are potentially at greater risk of hepatitis B than other travellers yet exposure to HBV remains under researched in this population. METHOD: A cross-sectional survey of backpackers visiting two islands in Thailand was performed during early 2015. Participation in activities with high HBV exposure risk was recorded, alongside rates of vaccination and an evaluation of knowledge and attitudes towards the risk of HBV. RESULTS: 1680 questionnaires were completed and analysed; the median participant age was 24 (range: 18-68) and 47.9% were male. 20.8% took part in activities with a high risk of HBV exposure. Over two-thirds of the sample were not protected against HBV. 24% were able to correctly identify HBV transmission methods. 44.1% underestimated the risk of HBV in Thailand. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of backpackers participating in high-risk activities was double the level found in previous studies that have examined the HBV exposure risk amongst travellers to endemic countries. Voluntary risk activities were the largest source of potential exposure to HBV and rates of vaccination are low. Backpackers should be considered for routine vaccination and education on risk behaviours should be included in the pre-travel consultation.

Patients' and clinicians' views on the optimum schedules for self-monitoring of blood pressure: a qualitative focus group and interview study.

BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring of blood pressure is common but guidance on how it should be carried out varies and it is currently unclear how such guidance is viewed. AIM: To explore patients' and healthcare professionals' (HCPs) views and experiences of the use of different self-monitoring regimens to determine what is acceptable and feasible, and to inform future recommendations. DESIGN AND SETTING: Thirteen focus groups and four HCP interviews were held, with a total of 66 participants (41 patients and 25 HCPs) from primary and secondary care with and without experience of self-monitoring. METHOD: Standard and shortened self-monitoring protocols were both considered. Focus groups and interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Patients generally supported structured schedules but with sufficient flexibility to allow adaptation to individual routine. They preferred a shorter (3-day) schedule to longer (7-day) regimens. Although HCPs could describe benefits for patients of using a schedule, they were reluctant to recommend a specific schedule. Concerns surrounded the use of different schedules for diagnosis and subsequent monitoring. Appropriate education was seen as vital by all participants to enable a self-monitoring schedule to be followed at home. CONCLUSION: There is not a 'one size fits all approach' to developing the optimum protocol from the perspective of users and those implementing it. An approach whereby patients are asked to complete the minimum number of readings required for accurate blood pressure estimation in a flexible manner seems most likely to succeed. Informative advice and guidance should incorporate such flexibility for patients and professionals alike.

Improving management and effectiveness of home blood pressure monitoring: a qualitative UK primary care study.

BACKGROUND: Self-monitoring blood pressure (SMBP) is becoming an increasingly prevalent practice in UK primary care, yet there remains little conceptual understanding of why patients with hypertension engage in self-monitoring. AIM: To identify psychological factors or processes prompting the decision to self-monitor blood pressure. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study of patients previously participating in a survey study about SMBP from four general practices in the West Midlands. METHOD: Taped and transcribed in-depth interviews with 16 patients (6 currently monitoring, 2 used to self-monitor, and 8 had never self-monitored). Thematic analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged: 'self' and 'living with hypertension' described the emotional element of living with an asymptomatic condition; 'self-monitoring behaviour and medication' described overall views about self-monitoring, current practice, reasons for monitoring, and the impact on medication adherence; and 'the GP-patient transaction' described the power relations affecting decisions to self-monitor. Self-monitoring was performed by some as a protective tool against the fears of a silent but serious condition, whereas others self-monitor simply out of curiosity. People who self-monitored tended not to discuss this with their nurse or GP, partly due to perceiving minimal or no interest from their clinician about home monitoring, and partly due to fear of being prescribed additional medication. CONCLUSION: The decision to self-monitor appeared often to be an individual choice with no schedule or systems to integrate it with other medical care. Better recognition by clinicians that patients are self-monitoring, perhaps utilising the results in shared decision-making, might help integrate it into daily practice.

Patients' experiences of self-monitoring blood pressure and self-titration of medication: the TASMINH2 trial qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Self-management of hypertension, comprising self-monitoring of blood pressure with self-titration of medication, improves blood pressure control, but little is known regarding the views of patients undertaking it. AIM: To explore patients' views of self-monitoring blood pressure and self-titration of antihypertensive medication. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study embedded within the randomised controlled trial TASMINH2 (Telemonitoirng and Self Management in the Control of Hypertension) trial of patient self-management of hypertension from 24 general practices in the West Midlands. METHOD: Taped and transcribed semi-structured interviews with 23 intervention patients were used. Six family members were also interviewed. Analysis was by a constant comparative method. RESULTS: Patients were confident about self-monitoring and many felt their multiple home readings were more valid than single office readings taken by their GP. Although many patients self-titrated medication when required, others lacked the confidence to increase medication without reconsulting with their GP. Patients were more comfortable with titrating medication if their blood pressure readings were substantially above target, but were reluctant to implement such a change if readings were borderline. Many planned to continue self-monitoring after the study finished and report home readings to their GP, but few wished to continue with a self-management plan. CONCLUSION: Participants valued the additional information and many felt confident in both self-monitoring blood pressure and self-titrating medication. The reluctance to change medication for borderline readings suggests behaviour similar to the clinical inertia seen for physicians in analogous circumstances. Additional support for those lacking in confidence to implement prearranged medication changes may allow more patients to undertake self-management.