Browsing by Author "Powers, Benjamin J"
Now showing 1 - 9 of 9
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Can this patient read and understand written health information?(JAMA, 2010-07) Powers, Benjamin J; Trinh, Jane V; Bosworth, Hayden BContext
Patients with limited literacy are at higher risk for poor health outcomes; however, physicians' perceptions are inaccurate for identifying these patients.Objective
To systematically review the accuracy of brief instruments for identifying patients with limited literacy.Data sources
Search of the English-language literature from 1969 through February 2010 using PubMed, Psychinfo, and bibliographies of selected manuscripts for articles on health literacy, numeracy, reading ability, and reading skill.Study selection
Prospective studies including adult patients 18 years or older that evaluated a brief instrument for identifying limited literacy in a health care setting compared with an accepted literacy reference standard.Data extraction
Studies were evaluated independently by 2 reviewers who each abstracted information and assigned an overall quality rating. Disagreements were adjudicated by a third reviewer.Data synthesis
Ten studies using 6 different instruments met inclusion criteria. Among multi-item measures, the Newest Vital Sign (English) performed moderately well for identifying limited literacy based on 3 studies. Among the single-item questions, asking about a patient's use of a surrogate reader, confidence filling out medical forms, and self-rated reading ability performed moderately well in identifying patients with inadequate or marginal literacy. Asking a patient, "How confident are you in filling out medical forms by yourself?" is associated with a summary likelihood ratio (LR) for limited literacy of 5.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.8-6.4) for an answer of "a little confident" or "not at all confident"; a summary LR of 2.2 (95% CI, 1.5-3.3) for "somewhat confident"; and a summary LR of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.24-0.82) for "quite a bit" or "extremely confident."Conclusion
Several single-item questions, including use of a surrogate reader and confidence with medical forms, were moderately effective for quickly identifying patients with limited literacy.Item Open Access Do the benefits of participation in a hypertension self-management trial persist after patients resume usual care?(Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes, 2014-03) Maciejewski, Matthew L; Bosworth, Hayden B; Olsen, Maren K; Smith, Valerie A; Edelman, David; Powers, Benjamin J; Kaufman, Miriam A; Oddone, Eugene Z; Jackson, George LBackground
Hypertension self-management has been shown to improve systolic blood pressure (BP) control, but longer-term economic and clinical impacts are unknown. The purpose of this article is to examine clinical and economic outcomes 18 months after completion of a hypertension self-management trial.Methods and results
This study is a follow-up analysis of an 18-month, 4-arm, hypertension self-management trial of 591 veterans with hypertension who were randomized to usual care or 1 of 3 interventions. Clinic-derived systolic blood pressure obtained before, during, and after the trial were estimated using linear mixed models. Inpatient admissions, outpatient expenditures, and total expenditures were estimated using generalized estimating equations. The 3 telephone-based interventions were nurse-administered health behavior promotion, provider-administered medication adjustments based on hypertension treatment guidelines, or a combination of both. Intervention calls were triggered by home BP values transmitted via telemonitoring devices. Clinical and economic outcomes were examined 12 months before, 18 months during, and 18 months after trial completion. Compared with usual care, patients randomized to the combined arm had greater improvement in proportion of BP control during and after the 18-month trial and estimated proportion of BP control improved 18 months after trial completion for patients in the behavioral and medication management arms. Among the patients with inadequate baseline BP control, estimated mean systolic BP was significantly lower in the combined arm as compared with usual care during and after the 18-month trial. Utilization and expenditure trends were similar for patients in all 4 arms.Conclusions
Behavioral and medication management can generate systolic BP improvements that are sustained 18 months after trial completion.Clinical trial registration
URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00237692.Item Open Access Economic evaluation of telephone self-management interventions for blood pressure control.(American heart journal, 2012-06) Wang, Virginia; Smith, Valerie A; Bosworth, Hayden B; Oddone, Eugene Z; Olsen, Maren K; McCant, Felicia; Powers, Benjamin J; Van Houtven, Courtney HaroldBackground
Half of patients with hypertension have poor blood pressure (BP) control. Recent models for treating hypertension have integrated disease monitoring and telephone-based interventions delivered in patients' homes. This study evaluated the costs of the Hypertension Intervention Nurse Telemedicine Study (HINTS), aimed to improve BP control in veterans.Methods
Eligible veterans were randomized to either usual care or 1 of 3 telephone-based intervention groups using home BP telemonitoring: (1) behavioral management, (2) medication management, or (3) combined. Intervention costs were derived from information collected during the trial. Direct medical costs (inpatient, outpatient, and outpatient pharmacy, including hypertension-specific pharmacy) at 18 months by group were calculated using Veterans Affairs (VA) Decision Support System data. Bootstrapped CIs were computed to compare intervention and medical costs between intervention groups and usual care.Results
Patients receiving behavior or medication management showed significant gains in BP control at 12 months; there were no differences in BP control at 18 months. In subgroup analysis, patients with poor baseline BP control receiving combined intervention significantly improved BP at 12 and 18 months. In overall and subgroup samples, average intervention costs were similar in the 3 study arms, and at 18 months, there were no statistically significant differences in direct VA medical costs or total VA costs between treatment arms and usual care.Conclusions
To optimize investment in telephone-based home interventions such as the HINTS, it is important to identify groups of patients who are most likely to benefit from more intensive home BP management.Item Open Access Home blood pressure management and improved blood pressure control: results from a randomized controlled trial.(Archives of internal medicine, 2011-07) Bosworth, Hayden B; Powers, Benjamin J; Olsen, Maren K; McCant, Felicia; Grubber, Janet; Smith, Valerie; Gentry, Pamela W; Rose, Cynthia; Van Houtven, Courtney; Wang, Virginia; Goldstein, Mary K; Oddone, Eugene ZBackground
To determine which of 3 interventions was most effective in improving blood pressure (BP) control, we performed a 4-arm randomized trial with 18-month follow-up at the primary care clinics at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center.Methods
Eligible patients were randomized to either usual care or 1 of 3 telephone-based intervention groups: (1) nurse-administered behavioral management, (2) nurse- and physician-administered medication management, or (3) a combination of both. Of the 1551 eligible patients, 593 individuals were randomized; 48% were African American. The intervention telephone calls were triggered based on home BP values transmitted via telemonitoring devices. Behavioral management involved promotion of health behaviors. Medication management involved adjustment of medications by a study physician and nurse based on hypertension treatment guidelines.Results
The primary outcome was change in BP control measured at 6-month intervals over 18 months. Both the behavioral management and medication management alone showed significant improvements at 12 months-12.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6%-24.1%) and 12.5% (95% CI, 1.3%-23.6%), respectively-but not at 18 months. In subgroup analyses, among those with poor baseline BP control, systolic BP decreased in the combined intervention group by 14.8 mm Hg (95% CI, -21.8 to -7.8 mm Hg) at 12 months and 8.0 mm Hg (95% CI, -15.5 to -0.5 mm Hg) at 18 months, relative to usual care.Conclusions
Overall intervention effects were moderate, but among individuals with poor BP control at baseline, the effects were larger. This study indicates the importance of identifying individuals most likely to benefit from potentially resource intensive programs.Trial registration
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00237692.Item Open Access Measuring blood pressure for decision making and quality reporting: where and how many measures?(Annals of internal medicine, 2011-06) Powers, Benjamin J; Olsen, Maren K; Smith, Valerie A; Woolson, Robert F; Bosworth, Hayden B; Oddone, Eugene ZBackground
The optimal setting and number of blood pressure (BP) measurements that should be used for clinical decision making and quality reporting are uncertain.Objective
To compare strategies for home or clinic BP measurement and their effect on classifying patients as having BP that was in or out of control.Design
Secondary analysis of a randomized, controlled trial of strategies to improve hypertension management. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00237692)Setting
Primary care clinics affiliated with the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center.Patients
444 veterans with hypertension followed for 18 months.Measurements
Blood pressure was measured repeatedly by using 3 methods: standardized research BP measurements at 6-month intervals; clinic BP measurements obtained during outpatient visits; and home BP measurements using a monitor that transmitted measurements electronically.Results
Patients provided 111,181 systolic BP (SBP) measurements (3218 research, 7121 clinic, and 100,842 home measurements) over 18 months. Systolic BP control rates at baseline (mean SBP<140 mm Hg for clinic or research measurement; <135 mm Hg for home measurement) varied substantially, with 28% classified as in control by clinic measurement, 47% by home measurement, and 68% by research measurement. Short-term variability was large and similar across all 3 methods of measurement, with a mean within-patient coefficient of variation of 10% (range, 1% to 24%). Patients could not be classified as having BP that was in or out of control with 80% certainty on the basis of a single clinic SBP measurement from 120 mm Hg to 157 mm Hg. The effect of within-patient variability could be greatly reduced by averaging several measurements, with most benefit accrued at 5 to 6 measurements.Limitation
The sample was mostly men with a long-standing history of hypertension and was selected on the basis of previous poor BP control.Conclusion
Physicians who want to have 80% or more certainty that they are correctly classifying patients' BP control should use the average of several measurements. Hypertension quality metrics based on a single clinic measurement potentially misclassify a large proportion of patients.Primary funding source
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service.Item Open Access Racial differences in two self-management hypertension interventions.(The American journal of medicine, 2011-05) Bosworth, Hayden B; Olsen, Maren K; Grubber, Janet M; Powers, Benjamin J; Oddone, Eugene ZBackground
Only one half of Americans have their blood pressure controlled, and there are significant racial differences in blood pressure control. The goal of this study was to examine the effectiveness of 2 patient-directed interventions designed to improve blood pressure control within white and non-white subgroups (African Americans, 49%).Methods
Post hoc analysis of a 2 by 2 randomized trial with 2-year follow-up in 2 university-affiliated primary care clinics was performed. Within white and non-white patients (n=634), 4 groups were examined: 1) usual care; 2) home blood pressure monitoring (3 times per week); 3) tailored behavioral self-management intervention administered via telephone by a nurse every other month; and 4) a combination of the 2 interventions.Results
The overall race by time by treatment group effect suggested differential intervention effects on blood pressure over time for whites and non-whites (systolic blood pressure, P=. 08; diastolic blood pressure, P=.01). Estimated trajectories indicated that among the 308 whites, there was no significant effect on blood pressure at 12 or 24 months for any intervention compared with the control group. At 12 months, the non-whites (n=328) in all 3 intervention groups had systolic blood pressure decreases of 5.3 to 5.7 mm Hg compared with usual care (P <.05). At 24 months, in the combined intervention, non-whites had sustained lower systolic blood pressure compared with usual care (7.5 mm Hg; P <.02). A similar pattern was observed for diastolic blood pressure.Conclusion
Combined home blood pressure monitoring and a tailored behavioral phone intervention seem to be particularly effective for improving blood pressure in non-white patients.Item Open Access The Cholesterol, Hypertension, And Glucose Education (CHANGE) study: results from a randomized controlled trial in African Americans with diabetes.(American heart journal, 2013-07) Crowley, Matthew J; Powers, Benjamin J; Olsen, Maren K; Grubber, Janet M; Koropchak, Celine; Rose, Cynthia M; Gentry, Pamela; Bowlby, Lynn; Trujillo, Gloria; Maciejewski, Matthew L; Bosworth, Hayden BBackground
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes account for one-third of the mortality difference between African American and white patients. We evaluated the effect of a CVD risk reduction intervention in African Americans with diabetes.Methods
We randomized 359 African Americans with type 2 diabetes to receive usual care or a nurse telephone intervention. The 12-month intervention provided monthly self-management support and quarterly medication management facilitation. Coprimary outcomes were changes in systolic blood pressure (SBP), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) over 12 months. We estimated between-intervention group differences over time using linear mixed-effects models. The secondary outcome was self-reported medication adherence.Results
The sample was 72% female; 49% had low health literacy, and 37% had annual income <$10,000. Model-based estimates for mean baseline SBP, HbA1c, and LDL-C were 136.8 mm Hg (95% CI 135.0-138.6), 8.0% (95% CI 7.8-8.2), and 99.1 mg/dL (95% CI 94.7-103.5), respectively. Intervention patients received 9.9 (SD 3.0) intervention calls on average. Primary providers replied to 76% of nurse medication management facilitation contacts, 18% of these resulted in medication changes. There were no between-group differences over time for SBP (P = .11), HbA1c (P = .66), or LDL-C (P = .79). Intervention patients were more likely than those receiving usual care to report improved medication adherence (odds ratio 4.4, 95% CI 1.8-10.6, P = .0008), but adherent patients did not exhibit relative improvement in primary outcomes.Conclusions
This intervention improved self-reported medication adherence but not CVD risk factor control among African Americans with diabetes. Further research is needed to determine how to maximally impact CVD risk factors in African American patients.Item Open Access The effectiveness of personalized coronary heart disease and stroke risk communication.(American heart journal, 2011-04) Powers, Benjamin J; Danus, Susanne; Grubber, Janet M; Olsen, Maren K; Oddone, Eugene Z; Bosworth, Hayden BBackground
Current guidelines recommend global risk assessment to guide vascular risk factor management; however, most provider-patient communication focuses on individual risk factors in isolation. We sought to evaluate the impact of personalized coronary heart disease and stroke risk communication on patients' knowledge, beliefs, and health behavior.Methods
We conducted a randomized controlled trial testing personalized risk communication based on Framingham stroke and coronary heart disease risk scores compared with a standard risk factor education. A total of 89 patients were recruited from primary care clinics and followed up for 3 months. Outcomes included the following: risk perception and worry, risk factor knowledge, risk reduction preferences and decision conflict, medication adherence, health behaviors, and blood pressure.Results
Participants had a very low understanding of numeric information, high perceived risk for stroke or myocardial infarction, and high proportion of medication nonadherence. Patients' ability to identify vascular risk factors increased with personalized risk communication (mean 1.8 additional risk factors, 95% CI 1.3-2.2) and standard risk factor education (mean 1.6 additional risk factors, 95% CI 1.1-2.1) immediately after the intervention but was not sustained at 3 months. Patients in the personalized group had less decision conflict than the standard risk factor education group over intended risk reduction strategies (5.9 vs 10.1, P = .003). There was no appreciable impact of either communication strategy on medication adherence, exercise, smoking cessation, or blood pressure.Conclusions
Personalized risk communication was preferred by patients and had a small impact on risk reduction preferences and decision conflict but had no impact on patient beliefs or behavior compared with standard risk factor education.Item Open Access Treatment intensification in a hypertension telemanagement trial: clinical inertia or good clinical judgment?(Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979), 2011-10) Crowley, Matthew J; Smith, Valerie A; Olsen, Maren K; Danus, Susanne; Oddone, Eugene Z; Bosworth, Hayden B; Powers, Benjamin JClinical inertia represents a barrier to hypertension management. As part of a hypertension telemanagement trial designed to overcome clinical inertia, we evaluated study physician reactions to elevated home blood pressures. We studied 296 patients from the Hypertension Intervention Nurse Telemedicine Study who received telemonitoring and study physician medication management. When a patient's 2-week mean home blood pressure was elevated, an "intervention alert" prompted study physicians to consider treatment intensification. We examined treatment intensification rates and subsequent blood pressure control. Patients generated 1216 intervention alerts during the 18-month intervention. Of 922 eligible intervention alerts, study physicians intensified treatment in 374 (40.6%). Study physician perception that home blood pressure was acceptable was the most common rationale for nonintensification (53.7%). When "blood pressure acceptable" was the reason for not intensifying treatment, the mean blood pressure was lower than for intervention alerts where treatment intensification occurred (135.3/76.7 versus 143.2/80.6 mm Hg; P<0.0001). Blood pressure acceptable intervention alerts were associated with the lowest incidence of repeat alerts (hazard ratio: 0.69 [95% CI: 0.58 to 0.83]), meaning that the patient home blood pressure was less likely to subsequently rise above goal, despite apparent clinical inertia. This telemedicine intervention targeting clinical inertia did not guarantee treatment intensification in response to elevated home blood pressures. However, when physicians did not intensify treatment, it was because blood pressure was closer to an acceptable threshold, and repeat blood pressure elevations occurred less frequently. Failure to intensify treatment when home blood pressure is elevated may, at times, represent good clinical judgment, not clinical inertia.