Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT02866669

Southeastern Collaboration to Improve Blood Pressure Control

The central objective of this proposal is to rigorously compare two strategies designed to improve BP control in primary care practices serving rural Southeastern African Americans with low socioeconomic status (SES) living in the "Black Belt".

In year 1, we're engaging community members (community members who have experience being community peer advisors or have high blood pressure) to develop the study interventions and protocols. In years 2-5, the investigators will test the interventions.

Year 2-5, Aim 3: Enroll 80 practices and 25 African American patients with uncontrolled HTN at each practice (total n=2000) in a cluster-randomized, controlled, 4-arm pragmatic implementation trial to evaluate the three multi- component, multi-level functional interventions finalized in the UH2 phase compared with enhanced usual care.

The study's 4 arms are:

1. Enhanced Usual Care: Practices are provided with educational materials and tools to enhance patient care 2. Peer Coaching: Patients enrolled in these practices will be matched with a peer coach. The peer coach helps the patient to set goals around self-management, including medications, home monitoring, and diet and exercise, and she helps the patient to strategize how to accomplish the goals, using motivational interviewing techniques 3. Practice Facilitation: Practices randomized to this arm will work with a practice facilitator. Practice facilitation is a highly customized, staged approach to helping a practice to implement process and structural changes to enhance the quality of care and improve patient and staff satisfaction 4. Peer coaching and practice facilitation: Practices randomized to this arm will receive both the peer coach intervention and the practice facilitation intervention. Practice facilitators and peer coaches will receive the same training for this hybrid intervention, but the practice facilitator change packet will add examples of activities that integrate peer coaches.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year–85 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

University of Alabama At Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States

Loading trial locations.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • African American adults aged 19-85 years
  • Uncontrolled HTN, defined as BP >140/90 mm Hg at the time of study enrollment
  • Black Belt resident
  • English speaking
  • Willing to work with a peer coach
  • Willing to sign informed consent

Exclusion criteria

  • Plans to move out of the area within the next two years
  • Advanced illness with limited life expectancy
  • Pregnant or plans to get pregnant in the next year
  • Advanced chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate <45 ml/min/1.73 m2)
  • Unwillingness to work with a peer coach or to sign informed consent

Treatment and study plan

Practice Facilitation

Behavioral

ractices that are randomized to the practice facilitation arm will work with a practice facilitator that will help practice staff for 15 months to make practice level changes to improve hypertension control. Practice facilitation is a highly customized, staged approach to helping a practice to implement process and structural changes to enhance the quality of care and improve patient and staff satisfaction

Peer Coach

Behavioral

Participants enrolled from practices that are randomized to the peer coach arm will be matched with peer advisors who will work with the participants for 12 months.

Other names: Taking Control of Your Health

Enhanced Usual Care

Behavioral

Practices in the usual enhanced care arm will receive a blood pressure medication algorithm developed using national guidelines and content experts on our study team. Practices will be provided the Joint National Committee (JNC) recommended protocol to measuring blood pressures. Practices will receive a laptop workstation that has access to the Patient Activated Learning System - an online education video system.

Primary outcomes

  1. Number of Participants With Blood Pressure Control (Systolic Pressure Less Than 140 mm Hg and Diastolic Pressure Less Than 90 mm Hg) at 12 Months

    Time frame: 12 months

    Blood pressure (BP) control is defined as systolic pressure less than 140 mm Hg and diastolic pressure less than 90 mm Hg. Difference in BP control at 12 month follow-up between trial arms. BP was assessed in the practice by a research assistant using a standardized protocol at baseline, 6, and 12 months.

Secondary outcomes

  1. Change in Systolic Blood Pressure Between Baseline and 12 Months

    Time frame: 12 months

    Change in systolic blood pressure between baseline and 12 months, which is analyzed by subtracting the baseline systolic BP from the 12 month systolic BP.

  2. Change in Satisfaction With Chronic Illness Care Between Baseline and 12 Months

    Time frame: 12 months

    Patient Assessment of Care for Chronic Conditions (PACIC) measures how patients perceive their chronic condition(s) are being managed by their health care team. Patients fill out a survey of 20 questions regarding the care of their chronic condition(s) over the last 12 months. Used a Likert scale from 1-5, where 1 signifies "None of the time" and 5 signifying "Always". PACIC was scored by summing participants' responses across all 20 items then dividing by 20. This score was calculated at baseline and 12 months follow-up. A change in score for each participant was created by subtracting the 12 months follow-up PACIC score from the baseline PACIC score.

  3. Change in Physical Component Summary Score (PCS) of the Short Form 12 (SF12)

    Time frame: 12 months

    Change in health related quality of life measured using self report scale Short form-12. Six questions comprise the PCS. Of the six questions, one question ranges on a 5 point Likert scale from excellent to poor. Two questions range on a 3 point Likert scale from a lot to not at all. Two questions are dichotomous as yes or no. One question ranges on a 5 point Likert scale from extremely to not at all. Different weights are applied to each item to results in scores ranging from 0-100 with higher scores indicating higher functioning.

  4. Change in the Mental Component Summary Score (MCS) From the Short Form 12 (SF12)

    Time frame: 12 months

    Change in health related quality of life measured using self report scale Short form-12. Six questions comprise the MCS. Of the six questions, two questions are dichotomous as yes or no. One question ranges on a 5 point Likert scale from all of the time to none of the time. Three questions range on a 6 point Likert scale from all of the time to none of the time. Different weights are applied to each item to result in a score ranging from 0-100 with higher scores indicating higher mental functioning.

  5. Self-reported ED Visit or Evidence of an ED Visit at Chart Review Between Baseline and 6 Months

    Time frame: between baseline and 6 months

    Outcome was defined by self-reported question (yes/no) or chart review. Those who reported yes to the question, "In the past 6 months have you been seen in an ER/ED but not admitted overnight" were considered having the outcome. Data collectors looked for ED visits in patient's charts between baseline and 6 month visit. The outcome measure timeframe is between baseline and 6 months.

  6. Self-reported ED Visit or Evidence of an ED Visit in Chart Review Between 6 Months and 12 Months

    Time frame: between 6 months to 12 month

    Outcome was defined by self-reported question (yes/no) or chart review. Those who reported yes to the question, "In the past 6 months have you been seen in an ER/ED but not admitted overnight" were considered having the outcome. Data collectors looked for ED visits in patient's charts between their 6 month and 12 month follow-up. The outcome measure timeframe is between 6 months and 12 month follow-up.

  7. Self-reported Hospitalization or Evidence of Hospitalization in Chart Review Between Baseline and 6 Months

    Time frame: between baseline to 6 months

    Outcome was defined by self-reported question (yes/no) or chart review. Those who reported yes to the question, "In the past 6 months have you been hospitalized overnight?" were considered having the outcome.

    Data collectors looked for hospitalization in patient's charts between baseline and 6 month visit. The outcome measure timeframe is between baseline and 6 months.

  8. Self-Reported Hospitalization or Evidence of Hospitalization in Chart Review Between 6 Month and 12 Month

    Time frame: between 6 month to 12 month

    Outcome was defined by self-reported question (yes/no) or chart review. Those who reported yes to the question, "In the past 6 months have you been hospitalized overnight?" were considered having the outcome. Data collectors looked for hospitalizations in patient's charts between their 6 month and 12 month follow-up. The outcome measure timeframe is between 6 months and 12 month follow-up.

  9. Change in Perceived Stress

    Time frame: 12 months

    The 4-item Cohen perceived stress scale that are measured on a 5-point scale (0 = never, 1= almost never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = fairly often and 4- very often). Items 2 and 3 are reverse coded and then all for items are summed to created a total score that ranges from 0 -16. A higher score is negative indicating greater perceived stress.

Other outcomes

  1. Self-reported Stroke

    Time frame: 12 months

    Self-reported stroke was defined as participants reporting yes to the question: Since the last time we spoke, were you ever told by a physician that you had a stroke?

  2. Change in Instrumental Support

    Time frame: 12 months

    We measured change in perceived instrumental support between baseline and 12 months using the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) short-form social functioning scale. To each question subjects were asked to respond with "never," "rarely," "sometimes," "usually," or "always." A numerical value was attached to each of these answers, ranging from 1 ("never") to 5 ("always"). Raw scores were translated to standardized t-scores to allow comparison of our sample to the U.S population. "). The T-score rescales the raw score into a standardized score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation (SD) of 10. Raw scores ranged from 4-20. Scale scores ranged from 29.3-69.3 with a higher score indicating greater instrumental support.

  3. Change in Perceived Emotional Support

    Time frame: 12 months

    We measured change perceived emotional support between baseline and 12 months using the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) short-form social functioning scale. To each question subjects were asked to respond with "never," "rarely," "sometimes," "usually," or "always." A numerical value was attached to each of these answers, ranging from 1 ("never") to 5 ("always"). The T-score rescales the raw score into a standardized score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation (SD) of 10. Raw scores were translated to standardized t-scores to allow comparison of our sample to the U.S population. Raw scores ranged from 4-20 and scale scores ranged from 25.7-62 with higher scores indicating greater emotional support.

  4. Change in Social Isolation

    Time frame: 12 months

    We measured change in isolation between baseline and 12 months using the Social Isolation Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) short-form social functioning scale. To each question subjects were asked to respond with "never," "rarely," "sometimes," "usually," or "always." A numerical value was attached to each of these answers, ranging from 1 ("never") to 5 ("always"). Raw scores were translated to standardized t-scores to allow comparison of our sample to the U.S population. The T-score rescales the raw score into a standardized score with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation (SD) of 10. The scale is comprised of 4 items. Raw scores range from 0-20 and scale scores range from 34.8-74.2. Higher scores indicate greater isolation.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Collaboration to Improve Blood Pressure in the US Black Belt-addressing the Triple Threat

Important dates

Study start
2017
Primary completion
2021
Study completion
2021
First posted
Aug 15, 2016
Registry last updated
Oct 5, 2023

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.