Effect of health coaching on blood pressure control and behavioral modification among patients with hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

IF 7.5 1区 医学 Q1 NURSING International Journal of Nursing Studies Pub Date : 2023-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2022.104406
Fei Meng, Yunxia Jiang, Pengli Yu, Yuting Song, Lixue Zhou, Yanhong Xu, Yunping Zhou
{"title":"Effect of health coaching on blood pressure control and behavioral modification among patients with hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials","authors":"Fei Meng,&nbsp;Yunxia Jiang,&nbsp;Pengli Yu,&nbsp;Yuting Song,&nbsp;Lixue Zhou,&nbsp;Yanhong Xu,&nbsp;Yunping Zhou","doi":"10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2022.104406","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Health coaching has emerged as a potential supporting tool for improving hypertension health behavior. However, health coaching efficacy on hypertension has not been reviewed systematically.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To evaluate the effects of health coaching on blood pressure and behavioral changes among patients with hypertension in randomized controlled trials.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>A systematic review and meta-analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We searched Medline (via PubMed), Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Proquest, and Scopus from inception to November 30, 2021. All randomized controlled trials that estimated the effects of health coaching on blood pressure and behavioral changes in adults with hypertension were included. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects or fixed-effects meta-analysis. Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were also conducted.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 1655 studies were screened and 12 randomized controlled trials were selected for inclusion, with 2497 participants were included. Most of the studies were at low risk of bias and the quality of evidence was high. The meta-analysis demonstrated that health coaching could significantly reduce systolic blood pressure (SMD: −<!--> <!-->0.26, 95 % CI: −<!--> <!-->0.39, −<!--> <!-->0.13, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001) and diastolic blood pressure in hypertension (SMD: −<!--> <!-->0.13, 95 % CI: −<!--> <!-->0.22, −<!--> <!-->0.03, <em>p</em> = 0.009). In addition, health coaching showed statistically significant positive effects on dietary behaviors (SMD: 0.76, 95 % CI: 0.08, 1.44, <em>p</em> = 0.02) and self-efficacy (SMD: 0.39, 95 % CI: 0.05, 0.73, <em>p</em> = 0.02). Subgroup analysis indicated that the most common and effective type of health coaching was the phone-based interventions (systolic blood pressure: SMD: −<!--> <!-->0.27, 95 % CI: −<!--> <!-->0.44, −<!--> <!-->0.10, <em>p</em> = 0.002; diastolic blood pressure: SMD: −<!--> <!-->0.14, 95 % CI: −<!--> <!-->0.25, −<!--> <!-->0.03, <em>p</em> = 0.02). The effects of nurse-delivered interventions were larger than other health care professionals (systolic blood pressure: SMD: −<!--> <!-->0.42, 95 % CI: −<!--> <!-->0.68, −<!--> <!-->0.16, <em>p</em> = 0.002; diastolic blood pressure: SMD: −<!--> <!-->0.19, 95 % CI: −<!--> <!-->0.35, −<!--> <!-->0.04, <em>p</em> = 0.02).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Current evidence suggested that health coaching could reduce blood pressure, improve dietary behaviors, and increase self-efficacy among patients with hypertension and thus could be an effective and alternative method in the management of hypertension. The most common and effective types of health coaching were phone-based and nurse-delivered interventions. Thus, more strategies and policies may be needed to implement these types of interventions to more patients with hypertension.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":50299,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Nursing Studies","volume":"138 ","pages":"Article 104406"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Nursing Studies","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020748922002358","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background

Health coaching has emerged as a potential supporting tool for improving hypertension health behavior. However, health coaching efficacy on hypertension has not been reviewed systematically.

Objective

To evaluate the effects of health coaching on blood pressure and behavioral changes among patients with hypertension in randomized controlled trials.

Design

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched Medline (via PubMed), Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Proquest, and Scopus from inception to November 30, 2021. All randomized controlled trials that estimated the effects of health coaching on blood pressure and behavioral changes in adults with hypertension were included. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects or fixed-effects meta-analysis. Sensitivity analysis and subgroup analysis were also conducted.

Results

A total of 1655 studies were screened and 12 randomized controlled trials were selected for inclusion, with 2497 participants were included. Most of the studies were at low risk of bias and the quality of evidence was high. The meta-analysis demonstrated that health coaching could significantly reduce systolic blood pressure (SMD: − 0.26, 95 % CI: − 0.39, − 0.13, p < 0.001) and diastolic blood pressure in hypertension (SMD: − 0.13, 95 % CI: − 0.22, − 0.03, p = 0.009). In addition, health coaching showed statistically significant positive effects on dietary behaviors (SMD: 0.76, 95 % CI: 0.08, 1.44, p = 0.02) and self-efficacy (SMD: 0.39, 95 % CI: 0.05, 0.73, p = 0.02). Subgroup analysis indicated that the most common and effective type of health coaching was the phone-based interventions (systolic blood pressure: SMD: − 0.27, 95 % CI: − 0.44, − 0.10, p = 0.002; diastolic blood pressure: SMD: − 0.14, 95 % CI: − 0.25, − 0.03, p = 0.02). The effects of nurse-delivered interventions were larger than other health care professionals (systolic blood pressure: SMD: − 0.42, 95 % CI: − 0.68, − 0.16, p = 0.002; diastolic blood pressure: SMD: − 0.19, 95 % CI: − 0.35, − 0.04, p = 0.02).

Conclusion

Current evidence suggested that health coaching could reduce blood pressure, improve dietary behaviors, and increase self-efficacy among patients with hypertension and thus could be an effective and alternative method in the management of hypertension. The most common and effective types of health coaching were phone-based and nurse-delivered interventions. Thus, more strategies and policies may be needed to implement these types of interventions to more patients with hypertension.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
健康指导对高血压患者血压控制和行为改变的影响:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析
背景健康指导已成为改善高血压健康行为的潜在支持工具。然而,健康指导对高血压的疗效尚未得到系统的评价。目的在随机对照试验中评价健康指导对高血压患者血压和行为变化的影响。设计一项系统综述和荟萃分析。方法从开始到2021年11月30日,我们搜索了Medline(通过PubMed)、Web of Science、Embase、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials、Proquest和Scopus。所有随机对照试验都包括在内,这些试验评估了健康指导对成年高血压患者血压和行为变化的影响。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估纳入研究的质量。标准化平均差(SMD)和95 % 使用随机效应或固定效应荟萃分析计算置信区间(CI)。还进行了敏感性分析和亚组分析。结果共筛选出1655项研究,选择12项随机对照试验纳入,2497名参与者纳入。大多数研究的偏倚风险很低,证据质量也很高。荟萃分析表明,健康指导可以显著降低收缩压(SMD:-0.26,95 % CI:−0.39,−0.13,p <; 0.001)和高血压患者的舒张压(SMD:−0.13,95 % CI:−0.22,−0.03,p = 0.009)。此外,健康指导对饮食行为的影响具有统计学意义(SMD:0.76,95 % CI:0.081.44,p = 0.02)和自我效能感(SMD:0.39,95 % CI:0.05,0.73,p = 0.02)。亚组分析表明,最常见和有效的健康指导类型是基于电话的干预(收缩压:SMD:-0.27,95 % CI:−0.44,−0.10,p = 0.002;舒张压:SMD:−0.14,95 % CI:−0.25,−0.03,p = 0.02)。护士提供的干预措施的效果大于其他医疗保健专业人员(收缩压:SMD:-0.42,95 % CI:−0.68,−0.16,p = 0.002;舒张压:SMD:−0.19,95 % CI:−0.35,−0.04,p = 0.02)。结论目前的证据表明,健康指导可以降低高血压患者的血压,改善饮食行为,提高自我效能,是一种有效的、可替代的高血压治疗方法。最常见和有效的健康指导类型是基于电话和护士提供的干预。因此,可能需要更多的策略和政策来对更多的高血压患者实施这些类型的干预。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
相关文献
Environmental Sustainability: To Enhance Organizational Awareness towards Green Environmental Concern
IF 0 International Journal of Energy Economics and PolicyPub Date : 2022-07-19 DOI: 10.32479/ijeep.13275
Yanto Ramli, E. S. Imaningsih, Aldina Shiratina, Adnan Rajak, Anees J. Ali
Green Banking: Awareness of Customers in Environmental Protection
IF 0 International Journal of Science and Management Studies (IJSMS)Pub Date : 2024-02-29 DOI: 10.51386/25815946/ijsms-v7i1p123
Dr. M.Yasmin, Dr. Fayaz Ahamed
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.00
自引率
2.50%
发文量
181
审稿时长
21 days
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Nursing Studies (IJNS) is a highly respected journal that has been publishing original peer-reviewed articles since 1963. It provides a forum for original research and scholarship about health care delivery, organisation, management, workforce, policy, and research methods relevant to nursing, midwifery, and other health related professions. The journal aims to support evidence informed policy and practice by publishing research, systematic and other scholarly reviews, critical discussion, and commentary of the highest standard. The IJNS is indexed in major databases including PubMed, Medline, Thomson Reuters - Science Citation Index, Scopus, Thomson Reuters - Social Science Citation Index, CINAHL, and the BNI (British Nursing Index).
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Personal and work-related factors associated with nurse resilience: An updated systematic review using meta-analysis and narrative synthesis Editorial Board Corrigendum to "Survivorship concerns among posttreatment cancer survivors in South Korea: A secondary analysis of a cross-sectional survey" [Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 162 (2025) 104982]. Authors' response to "Comment on Fajarini et al. (2024) 'Effects of advanced practice nurses on health-care costs, quality of care, and patient well-being in health-care settings: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials'".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1