Unsung heroes in health education and promotion: How Community Health Workers contribute to hypertension management

Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Patient-Centered, Nonphysician Led Self-Monitoring Blood Pressure Program in a Rural Federally Qualified Health Center

CONTEXT

Uncontrolled hypertension can lead to an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, or death. Self-monitoring blood pressure (SMBP) programs have been associated with blood pressure (BP) reduction, particularly among rural, minority, and low-income individuals. There is limited literature about nonphysician SMBP programs.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of an SMBP program designed to engage nonphysician team members in hypertension management within a federally qualified health center (FQHC).

DESIGN

Self-monitoring blood pressure program activities were implemented using a Plan, Do, Study, Act model. The University of Washington Health Promotion Research Center evaluated processes and patient-level outcomes in a mixed-methods design. Quantitative analysis examined clinical outcomes related to hypertension, and qualitative analysis relied on interviews with clinical staff examining program implementation, adoption, and sustainability.

SETTING

Family Health Centers (FHCs), a FQHC located in rural Washington, serving medically underserved populations.

PARTICIPANTS

Two hundred five active SMBP patients out of 2600 adult patients (over 18 years old) who had a diagnosis of hypertension within the last 12 months.

INTERVENTION

Patients with uncontrolled hypertension were given a BP cuff to log their daily BP. Patients met with community health workers (CHWs) and medical staff to review logs and set self-management goals over 3 to 4 months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Controlled BP measurements and factors to implementation and sustainment.

RESULTS

Facilitators to implementation included expanded telehealth reimbursement during the COVID-19 pandemic, integration of CHWs, and linguistically adapted resources. Barriers included a lack of reimbursement for nonphysician time and BP monitors. Quantitative results demonstrated an effort to reach minoritized populations but did not show an improvement in BP outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Family Health Center implemented an SMBP program adapted to meet the linguistic and social needs of their patients. The successful integration of CHWs and the need for reimbursement policies to support SMBP programs were key factors for implementation and sustainability.

Lay advisor interventions for hypertension outcomes: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis and a RE-AIM evaluation

Introduction

Lay advisor interventions improve hypertension outcomes; however, the added benefits and relevant factors for their widespread implementation into health systems are unknown. We performed a systematic review to: (1) summarize the benefits of adding lay advisors to interventions on hypertension outcomes, and (2) summarize factors associated with successful implementation in health systems using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework.

Methods

We systematically searched several databases, including Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO from January 1981 to May 2023. All study designs of interventions delivered solely by lay advisors for adults with hypertension were eligible. If both arms received the lay advisor intervention, the study arm with lower intensity was assigned as the low-intensity intervention.

Results

We included 41 articles, of which 22 were RCTs, from 7,267 screened citations. Studies predominantly included socially disadvantaged populations. Meta-analysis (9 RCTs; n = 4,220) of eligible lay advisor interventions reporting outcomes showed improved systolic blood pressure (BP) [-3.72 mm Hg (CI -6.1 to -1.3; I2 88%)], and diastolic BP [-1.7 mm Hg (CI -1 to -0.9; I2 7%)] compared to control group. Pooled effect from six RCTs (n = 3,277) comparing high-intensity with low-intensity lay advisor interventions showed improved systolic BP of -3.6 mm Hg (CI -6.7 to -0.5; I2 82.7%) and improved diastolic BP of -2.1 mm Hg (CI -3.7 to -0.4; I2 70.9%) with high-intensity interventions. No significant difference in pooled odds of hypertension control was noted between lay advisor intervention and control groups, or between high-intensity and low-intensity intervention groups. Most studies used multicomponent interventions with no stepped care elements or reporting of efficacious components. Indicators of external validity (adoption, implementation, maintenance) were infrequently reported.

Discussion

Lay advisor interventions improve hypertension outcomes, with high intensity interventions having a greater impact. Further studies need to identify successful intervention and implementation factors of multicomponent interventions for stepped upscaling within healthcare system settings as well as factors used to help sustain interventions.

Association of social isolation and loneliness with the risk of hypertension in middle aged and older adults: Findings from a national representative longitudinal survey

BACKGROUND

Social isolation and loneliness have been proved to be associated with many adverse health outcomes, but their influence on hypertension remains unclear. This study aimed to assess the relationship of social isolation and loneliness with hypertension risk among middle-aged and older adults in China.

METHODS

We used data from the 2011 and 2015 waves of the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study. Participants were assessed for social isolation and loneliness at baseline, and hypertension was identified by self-report and blood pressure measurement at follow-up in 2015. Binary logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the association of social isolation and loneliness with the risk of hypertension.

RESULTS

A total of 3711 residents were included. 13.7 % of the participants had high level of social isolation and 18.1 % felt lonely. During the four-year follow up period, 651 participants developed hypertension. People with high level of social isolation had an increased risk of hypertension (odds ratio [OR]: 1.40, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 1.09-1.79). Similar results were found between social isolation score and hypertension risk (OR: 1.14, 95 % CI: 1.04-1.26). No significant association between loneliness and hypertension or any interaction effect of social isolation and loneliness on hypertension were observed.

LIMITATIONS

Limited by the structure of questionnaire, some of the information was derived by self-report, which may lead to recalling bias.

CONCLUSION

Social isolation, rather than loneliness was associated with hypertension for middle aged and older adults. Social support needs to be strengthened for hypertension prevention in community.