Agreement between community pharmacy, physician's office, and home blood pressure measurement Methods : the palmera study

Sendra-Lillo, J; Sabater-Hernández, D; Sendra-Ortolá, A; Martínez-Martínez, F

Agreement between community pharmacy, physician's office, and home blood pressure measurement Methods : the palmera study

Sendra-Lillo, J Sabater-Hernández, D

Sendra-Ortolá, A Martínez-Martínez, F

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: American Journal of Hypertension, 2012, 25 (3), pp. 290 - 296
Issue Date:: 2012-03-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2013002687OK.pdf		163.15 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Sendra-Lillo, J	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Sabater-Hernández, D https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7419-8740	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Sendra-Ortolá, A	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Martínez-Martínez, F	en_US
dc.date.issued	2012-03-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	American Journal of Hypertension, 2012, 25 (3), pp. 290 - 296	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0895-7061	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/29013
dc.description.abstract	Background The usefulness of the community pharmacy blood pressure (BP) (CPBP) method in assessing the effectiveness of antihypertensive treatment has not been adequately studied. The aim of this study was to assess the agreement between community pharmacy, home, and physician office BP (POBP) measurement Methods in treated hypertensive patients. Methods BP was measured at the pharmacy (three visits), at home (4 days) and at the physician office (three visits). The Lin correlation-concordance coefficient (CCC) was used to evaluate the quantitative agreement. The qualitative agreement between Methods to establish the patient's hypertensive state was evaluated using the-coefficient. Using home BP (HBP) monitoring as the reference method, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios of the CPBP and POBP measurement Methods were calculated. Results The study included 70 patients. Agreements were acceptable-moderate between CPBP and HBP (CCC (systolic BP (SBP)/diastolic BP (DBP)) = 0.79/0.66; = 0.56), moderate between CPBP and POBP (CCC = 0.57/0.61; = 0.35), and moderate-poor (CCC = 0.56/0.49; = 0.28) between POBP and HBP. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio for the CPBP and the POBP measurement Methods were: 60.7%, 92.9%, 8.5, 0.4 and 75.0%, 54.8%, 1.7, 0.5, respectively. Conclusions In this sample of treated hypertensive patients, the agreement between the community pharmacy and HBP measurement Methods was acceptable-moderate and greater than other agreements. The CPBP measurement method was more reliable than the POBP measurement method for detecting the presence of both uncontrolled and controlled BP and could be a good alternative to HBP monitoring when the latter lacks suitability. © 2012 American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	American Journal of Hypertension	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1038/ajh.2011.207	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Cardiovascular System & Hematology	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Humans	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Hypertension	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Antihypertensive Agents	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Blood Pressure Determination	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Sensitivity and Specificity	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Reproducibility of Results	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Predictive Value of Tests	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Aged	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Middle Aged	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Pharmacies	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Office Visits	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Female	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Male	en_US
dc.title	Agreement between community pharmacy, physician's office, and home blood pressure measurement Methods : the palmera study	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	3	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	25	en_US
utslib.for	1115 Pharmacology and Pharmaceutical Sciences	en_US
utslib.for	1103 Clinical Sciences	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Graduate School of Health
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	3	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	25	en_US

Abstract:

Background The usefulness of the community pharmacy blood pressure (BP) (CPBP) method in assessing the effectiveness of antihypertensive treatment has not been adequately studied. The aim of this study was to assess the agreement between community pharmacy, home, and physician office BP (POBP) measurement Methods in treated hypertensive patients. Methods BP was measured at the pharmacy (three visits), at home (4 days) and at the physician office (three visits). The Lin correlation-concordance coefficient (CCC) was used to evaluate the quantitative agreement. The qualitative agreement between Methods to establish the patient's hypertensive state was evaluated using the-coefficient. Using home BP (HBP) monitoring as the reference method, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios of the CPBP and POBP measurement Methods were calculated. Results The study included 70 patients. Agreements were acceptable-moderate between CPBP and HBP (CCC (systolic BP (SBP)/diastolic BP (DBP)) = 0.79/0.66; = 0.56), moderate between CPBP and POBP (CCC = 0.57/0.61; = 0.35), and moderate-poor (CCC = 0.56/0.49; = 0.28) between POBP and HBP. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio for the CPBP and the POBP measurement Methods were: 60.7%, 92.9%, 8.5, 0.4 and 75.0%, 54.8%, 1.7, 0.5, respectively. Conclusions In this sample of treated hypertensive patients, the agreement between the community pharmacy and HBP measurement Methods was acceptable-moderate and greater than other agreements. The CPBP measurement method was more reliable than the POBP measurement method for detecting the presence of both uncontrolled and controlled BP and could be a good alternative to HBP monitoring when the latter lacks suitability. © 2012 American Journal of Hypertension, Ltd.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/29013