Comparison of blood pressure measurements obtained in the home setting

BACKGROUND: Automated blood pressure (BP) devices have been used in the home for self-management purposes and are increasingly being used in population-based research. Although these devices are convenient and affordable and may be used by inexperienced lay personnel, the potential impact of an examiner’s skill level on the results needs to be evaluated quantitatively. The aim of this study was to compare BP measurements obtained in a home setting by personnel with healthcare experience with those obtained by personnel without healthcare experience. In addition, the percent agreement in high blood pressure (HBP) classification between the home BP measurement by the field interviewer (FI) and measurements obtained in a standardized environment was examined. METHODS: The Health Measures at Home Study was a pilot study carried out among 128 adult participants recruited from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The Health Measures at Home Study provided the opportunity to compare the BP values obtained with an automated device in a home setting by both experienced health technicians (HTs) with those obtained by FIs who had no healthcare experience. Differences between measurements obtained by the HT and measurements obtained by the FI were assessed using paired t-tests, Pearson’s correlations, and Bland–Altman plots. Percent agreement and κ-statistics were used to assess agreement in HBP classification between examiners in the home. Measurements obtained by the FI were also compared with those obtained in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey mobile exam center (MEC) by a physician using percent agreement and κ-statistics. RESULTS: There was a high correlation in both systolic blood pressure (SBP; r = 0.903) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP; r = 0.894) between measurements obtained by HTs and those obtained by FIs. The mean SBP and DBP obtained by the FIs (SBP, 119.0 ± 14.4 mmHg; DBP,71.9 ± 9.8 mmHg) were significantly higher than the HT measurements (SBP, 117.0 ± 12.7 mmHg; DBP,69.9.9 ± 9.2 mmHg). In the home, the FI classified 11.7% as having HBP, whereas the HT classified 7.0%. The percent of individuals classified as having HBP by the physician in the MEC was 10.2% of the participants. CONCLUSION: Operationally, FIs could take BP measurements in the home; however, there were some differences between measurements obtained by the FI and HT. The absolute difference between measurements obtained by the FI and those obtained by the HT in the home showed that measurements obtained by the FI tended to be higher than the HT, but the magnitude of these differences was less than 5 mmHg. The HT classified 7.0% of HBP whereas the FI classified 11.7% of HBP. Similarly, the FI and the MEC physician classified a different percent of individuals with HBP. Further investigation is warranted to determine the cause of these small but significant absolute differences between measurements obtained by the FI and HT.