3.8 Article

Effect of Training through Short Message Service on Compliance and Mean Blood Pressure of Hypertensive Patients

期刊

出版社

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_507_17

关键词

Compliance; hypertension; short message service; training

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Hypertension has been one of the early mortality and morbidity in human societies. Training and consequently compliance increase will lead to improve treatment progress and disease control. The study aimed at the effect of training through short message service (SMS) on blood pressure mean and compliance scale in hypertensive patients. Hypertension control is essential to prevent early mortality. Methods: This study is a randomized controlled clinical, uni-center, single-blinded. The study was managed in a health-care center subordinated to Medical University of Isfahan, Iran, in 2017. Sampling was a convenient method therefore the researchers implemented it for 188 hypertensive patients who were allocated randomly into two groups: SMS group and control group. First, all patients filled the compliance questionnaire, and their blood pressure was measured. Afterward, the intervention group would be texting daily for 1 month containing a training text. During 1 and 2 months after intervention, all patients' blood pressure will be measured, and then the questionnaire had been filled 2 months after intervention, again. Results: Systolic blood pressure mean decreased from 136.23 +/- 15.91 to 121.70 +/- 14.43 and diastolic blood pressure mean decreased from 91.95 +/- 8.24 to 86.64 +/- 7.86 in the intervention group according to analysis of variance through repeated measurement and is significantly different in comparison with control group (P < 0.001). Compliance scale increased from 72.95 +/- 7.65 to 85.40 +/- 5.62 based on dependent t-test which was significantly different with the control group (P < 0.001). Conclusions: SMS training would be an effective method to control hypertension.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据