3.8 Article

Reducing Adverse Self-Medication Behaviors in Older Adults with Hypertension: Results of an e-health Clinical Efficacy Trial

期刊

AGEING INTERNATIONAL
卷 36, 期 2, 页码 159-191

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12126-010-9085-9

关键词

Hypertension; Self-medication management; Older adults; Tailored intervention; e-health

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute [5R01HL084208]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A randomized controlled efficacy trial targeting older adults with hypertension (age 60 and over) provided an e-health, tailored intervention with the next generation of the Personal Education Program (PEP-NG). Eleven primary care practices with advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) providers participated. Participants (N=160) were randomly assigned by the PEP-NG (accessed via a wireless touchscreen tablet computer) to either control (entailing data collection and four routine APRN visits) or tailored intervention (involving PEP-NG intervention and four focused APRN visits) group. Compared to patients in the control group, patients receiving the PEP-NG e-health intervention achieved significant increases in both self-medication knowledge and self-efficacy measures, with large effect sizes. Among patients not at BP targets upon entry to the study, therapy intensification in controls (increased antihypertensive dose and/or an additional antihypertensive) was significant (p=.001) with an odds ratio of 21.27 in the control compared to the intervention group. Among patients not at BP targets on visit 1, there was a significant declining linear trend in proportion of the intervention group taking NSAIDs 21-31 days/month (p=0.008). Satisfaction with the PEP-NG and the APRN provider relationship was high in both groups. These results suggest that the PEP-NG e-health intervention in primary care practices is effective in increasing knowledge and self-efficacy, as well as improving behavior regarding adverse self-medication practices among older adults with 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