Lack of effects of evidence-based, individualised counselling on medication use in insured patients with mild hypertension in China: a randomised controlled trial. Issue 3 (31st August 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Di, Mengyang; Mao, Chen; Yang, Zuyao; Ding, Hong; Liu, Qu; Liu, Shuiming; Guo, Hongbo; Jiang, Kunhua; Tang, Jinling
• Is Part Of: BMJ evidence-based medicine. Volume 25:Issue 3(2020)
• Page Start: 102
• Page End: 108
• Publication Date: 2019-08-31
• Subjects: evidence-based medicine -- antihypertensive treatment -- individualised counselling -- primary care -- randomised controlled trial; Evidence-based medicine -- Periodicals; 616.005
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111197
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2515-446X

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: To evaluate whether evidence-based, individualised (EBI) counselling regarding hypertension and the treatment would affect medication use in insured patients with mild hypertension in China. Methods: We conducted a parallel-group, randomised controlled trial in two primary care centres in Shenzhen, a metropolitan city in China. Patients with mild primary hypertension, 10-year risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) lower than 20% and no history of CVDs were recruited and randomly allocated to two groups. EBI plus general counselling was provided to the intervention group and general counselling alone to the control group. EBI counselling included information on the 10-year CVD risk and treatment benefit in terms of absolute risk reduction estimated for each individual and information on average side effects and costs of antihypertensive drugs. The outcomes included use of antihypertensive drugs and adherence to the treatment at 6-month follow-up, with the former being primary outcome. Results: Two hundred and ten patients were recruited, with 103 and 107 allocated to the intervention and control groups, respectively. At baseline, 62.4% of the patients were taking antihypertensive drugs that were all covered by health insurance. At the end of 6-month follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of medication use between the intervention group and the control group (65.0% vs 57.9%; OR=1.35, 95% CI: 0.77 to 2.36). The difference in adherence rate between the two groups was not statistically significant either (43.7% vs 40.2%; OR=1.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.00]). The results were robust in sensitivity analyses that used different cutoffs to define the two outcomes. Conclusions: The EBI counselling by health educators other than the caring physicians had little impact on treatment choices and drug-taking behaviours in insured patients with mild primary hypertension in this study. It remains unclear whether EBI counselling would make a difference in uninsured patients, especially when conducted by the caring physicians. Trial registration number: ChiCTR-TRC-14004169.