In the Annals’ analysis, studies of patients given home testing, but no extra help other than ordinary physicians’ visits, saw modest declines in their blood pressure after six months, but the improvement vanished after a year. Experts said they believe the temporary improvement was tied to better patient adherence to medication regimens, at least at first.
Studies in which patients used home monitors along with web-based connections to their clinics, counseling or other services, seemed to produce a more lasting benefit. In the most robust studies, patient’s systolic pressure improved by 3.4 points to 8.9 points after a year, compared with usual care.
Source: Wall Street Journal.
This ignores the cost side, which is vital to making decisions about treatment and care
I’ve noticed that cost is often left out of studies like this. However, when you find it included it usually reveals interesting resuts.
Can you be more specific? I’d be interested to learn what results it includes…
The results are interesting, because they are completely contrary to the studies original results that didn’t include cost.
Right, the cost factor is a huge factor that has to be accounted for.
It is possibly the most important variable in any statistical analysis.
I don’t know about that, but it certainly is important in certain projects.
In the most robust studies, patient’s systolic pressure improved by 3.4 points to 8.9 points after a year, compared with usual care.
wow that is incredible.
Yes, and I suspect schooling doesn’t work without teachers administering tests.