Treatment adherence
Does wireless BP monitoring boost patient activation’s benefits?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
In hypertensive adults, a wireless self-monitoring program strengthened links between rising patient activation and better behaviours/BP control.
Study at a glance
- Design
- RCT — Substudy of a randomized wireless home-monitoring hypertension trial
- N
- N=95 · Participants with BP at both study visits (52 monitoring, 43 control)
- Population
- Adults in a wireless home BP self-monitoring trial with mobile/web support
- Outcome
- Whether monitoring moderated PAM-change associations with behaviours, adherence, and BP over 6 months
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
Wireless self-monitoring strengthened associations between positive PAM changes and health behaviours and blood pressure control, supporting activation-focused hypertension management.
Methodology
As a substudy of a randomized trial, investigators assessed whether wireless home monitoring with mobile/web support moderated relationships between Patient Activation Measure (PAM) changes and health behaviours, medication adherence, and blood pressure over 6 months.
Limitations
Results do not prove which app feature is essential or long-term hard cardiovascular outcomes.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Multiple studies in this library examine treatment adherence with empirical patient or population outcomes rather than opinion alone.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Wireless self-monitoring strengthened associations between positive PAM changes and health behaviours and blood pressure control, supporting activation-focused hypertension management.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Effect sizes and settings differ across treatment adherence studies — digital vs clinic, trial vs observational — so results should not be pooled casually.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Open questions
Tensions this paper is part of
From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.
Effect sizes and settings differ across treatment adherence studies — digital vs clinic, trial vs observational — so results should not be pooled casually.
- Supports · ALICE pillbox app RCT
- Supports · Join2move usage drop-off
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.