Search

Background Self-monitoring of blood pressure has been shown to optimize the management of blood pressure in high-income settings, but there is less evidence from low-to-middle income countries. We designed a proof-of-concept pilot trial to assess the feasibility and acceptability of an intervention built around self-monitoring of blood pressure and health education, and to measure its association with reduced blood pressure among hypertensives. The study was conducted in Lebanon, a country where the management of hypertension presents challenges similar to those faced in countries of the Arab region and other middle-income countries. Methods We conducted a parallel two-arm pilot trial with a mixed-method approach to investigate the effect of the intervention on patient experience. Hypertensive patients (n = 80) were recruited at two primary and one tertiary health centers in Beirut, and were randomly allocated (1:1) to either an intervention group where patients received blood pressure devices, diaries and educational sessions, or a control group where patients received standard of care as practiced in their health centers. The main outcomes were feasibility (recruitment, retention and adherence), acceptability, and changes in systolic blood pressure. Quantitative and qualitative data were obtained at baseline and 6 weeks later. Results The recruitment rates for the study was 52% and retention was 95%. Most participants in the self-monitoring group (33/38) reported that the device was convenient and easy to use. Complete case analysis showed that blood pressure monitoring was associated with a greater reduction in systolic (-6.3 mmHg, 95%CI [-12.4; − 0.17]) and diastolic (-1.9 mmHg, 95%CI [-6.34; 2.58]) blood pressure in the self-monitoring group (n = 36) as compared to the standard of care group (n = 36). Improved knowledge of hypertension was also observed in the self-monitoring group. There were no adverse events related to study participation. Conclusions Self-monitoring is acceptable and feasible and has the potential to improve hypertension management. Our results should be further tested in trials with adequate statistical power and longer follow-up periods to examine the effectiveness of the intervention on blood pressure levels. Trial Registration and funding: Retrospectively Registered on April 3, 2020. ISRCTN 16450193. Funded by the Harvard Medical School Center for Global Health Delivery.

International audience; Patients frequently ask about the cause of their breast cancer. To answer, physicians refer to breast cancer risk factors based on medical reports. We aim to assess these risk factors for the point of view of survivors, a point of view which seems to differ from that of medical references. We ran a survey with open- and closed-ended questionnaires on patients' opinions about risks factors both for women in general and for their own case. We also collected data on their sources of information on this subject. Most patients had no opinion. The most frequently cited risk factors were stress, then genetic causes, and poor diet. Internet was the leading source of information for patients, followed by physicians and magazines. Our study highlights the mismatch between breast cancer risk factors as perceived by scientists and by survivors. Survivors tend to focus on non-controllable risk factors. Taking into account attribution theories of life events, an awareness of patient opinion may be valuable for psychological support of survivors, and it may be informative to record the way in which patients attribute causality for life events such as breast cancer and, more generally, all type of cancer.

Background: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), a leading cause of mortality, mainly affects children in developing countries. The harsh circumstances experienced by refugees include various factors associated with respiratory pathogen transmission, and clinical progression of CAP. Consequently, the etiology of CAP in humanitarian crisis situations may differ to that of settled populations, which would impact appropriate case management. Therefore, the Pneumonia Etiology Among Refugees and the Lebanese population (PEARL) study was initiated with the objective of identifying the causal pathogenic microorganisms in the respiratory tract of children and adults from both the refugee and host country population presenting with signs of CAP during a humanitarian crisis. Methods: PEARL, a prospective, multicentric, case-control study, will be conducted at four primary healthcare facilities in Tripoli and the Bekaa valley over 15 months (including two high-transmission seasons/winters). Sociodemographic and medical data, and biological samples will be collected from at least 600 CAP cases and 600 controls. Nasopharyngeal swabs, sputum, urine and blood samples will be analyzed at five clinical pathology laboratories in Lebanon to identify the bacterial and viral etiological agents of CAP. Transcriptomic profiling of host leukocytes will be performed. Conclusions: PEARL is an original observational study that will provide important new information on the etiology of pneumonia among refugees, which may improve case management, help design antimicrobial stewardship interventions, and reduce morbidity and mortality due to CAP in a humanitarian crisis.