4.6 Article

The contexts of adherence for African Americans with high blood pressure

期刊

JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING
卷 32, 期 3, 页码 587-594

出版社

BLACKWELL SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01538.x

关键词

hypertension; adherence; black males; psychosocial factors; qualitative

类别

资金

  1. NINR NIH HHS [R01NR/HL04119] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NURSING RESEARCH [R01NR004119] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

African American men between the ages of 18 and 49 years have the lowest rates of awareness, treatment and control of high blood pressure (HBP) of all age/race/gender groups in the United States. A qualitative study was done to gain an understanding of urban black males' experiences of living with HBP. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 black males. The interviews explored perceptions of health, health problems and priorities, and concerns of daily living that influenced appointment keeping and medication taking. The sample was a subset of 309 men participating in a 3-year clinical trial to improve HBP control in an inner city African-American population. Content analysis of transcribed interviews identified the following themes and related concerns: (a) personal contexts: meaning of health, high blood pressure and treatments; (b) social context: living as a young black male in an urban environment; and (c) cultural context of relating: patient-provider relationship can make a difference. Influencing participants' responses were: interpreting symptoms; adjusting medication taking; protecting personal privacy; allocating limited resources; dealing with addiction; and feeling cared for by a health care provider. Adherence appeared to be multifaceted and changing depending upon: the men's social, economic and personal circumstances; empathetic and non-judgemental assistance from providers; financial concerns and employment; and drug addiction. Findings are useful in refining high blood pressure interventions.

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

4.6
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