Search

Background: Disparities in hypertension control are well documented but underaddressed., Methods: RICH LIFE (Reducing Inequities in Care of Hypertension: Lifestyle Improvement for Everyone) was a 2-arm, cluster randomized trial comparing the effect on blood pressure (BP) control (systolic BP ≤140 mm Hg, diastolic BP ≤90 mm Hg), patient activation, and disparities in BP control of 2 multilevel interventions, standard of care plus (SCP) and collaborative care/stepped care (CC/SC). SCP included BP measurement standardization, audit and feedback, and equity-leadership training. CC/SC added roles to address social or medical needs. Primary outcomes were BP control and patient activation at 12 months. Generalized estimating equations and mixed-effects regression models with fixed effects of time, intervention, and their interaction compared change in outcomes at 12 months from baseline., Results: A total of 1820 adults with uncontrolled BP and ≥1 other risk factors enrolled in the study. Their mean age was 60.3 years, and baseline BP was 152.3/85.5 mm Hg; 59.4% were women; 57.4% were Black, 33.2% were White, and 9.4% were Hispanic; 74% had hyperlipidemia; and 45.1% had type 2 diabetes. CC/SC did not improve BP control rates more than SCP. Both groups achieved statistically and clinically significant BP control rates at 12 months (CC/SC: 57.3% [95% CI, 52.7%-62.0%]; SCP: 56.7% [95% CI, 51.9%-61.5%]). Pairwise comparisons between racial and ethnic groups showed overall no significant differences in BP control at 12 months. Patients with coronary heart disease showed greater achievement of BP control in CC/SC than in SCP (64.0% [95% CI, 54.1%-73.9%] versus 50.8% [95% CI, 42.6%-59.0%]; P =0.04), as did patients in rural areas (67.3% [95% CI, 49.8%-84.8%] versus 47.8% [95% CI, 32.4%-63.2%]; P =0.01). Individuals in both arms experienced statistically and clinically significant reductions in mean systolic BP (CC/SC: -13.8 mm Hg [95% CI, -15.2 to -12.5]; SCP: -14.6 mm Hg [95% CI, -15.9 to -13.2]) and diastolic BP (CC/SC: -6.9 mm Hg [95% CI, -7.8 to -6.1]; SCP: -5.5 mm Hg [95% CI, -6.4 to -4.6]) over time. The difference in diastolic BP reduction between CC/SC and SCP over time was statistically significant (-1.4 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.6 to -0.2). Patient activation did not differ between arms. CC/SC showed greater improvements in patient ratings of chronic illness care (Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care score) over 12 months (0.12 [95% CI, 0.02-0.22])., Conclusions: Adding a collaborative care team to enhanced standard of care did not improve BP control but did improve patient ratings of chronic illness care., Competing Interests: Dr Boonyasai’s contributions do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Health and Human Services or the US government. Dr Crews has active research grants from Bayer and Somatus (paid to Johns Hopkins University). The other authors report no conflicts.

Shared decision-making is increasingly embraced in health care and recommended in cardiovascular guidelines. Patient involvement in health care decisions, patient-clinician communication, and models of patient-centered care are critical to improve health outcomes and to promote equity, but formal models and evaluation in cardiovascular care are nascent. Shared decision-making promotes equity by involving clinicians and patients, sharing the best available evidence, and recognizing the needs, values, and experiences of individuals and their families when faced with the task of making decisions. Broad endorsement of shared decision-making as a critical component of high-quality, value-based care has raised our awareness, although uptake in clinical practice remains suboptimal for a range of patient, clinician, and system issues. Strategies effective in promoting shared decision-making include educating clinicians on communication techniques, engaging multidisciplinary medical teams, incorporating trained decision coaches, and using tools (ie, patient decision aids) at appropriate literacy and numeracy levels to support patients in their cardiovascular decisions. This scientific statement shines a light on the limited but growing body of evidence of the impact of shared decision-making on cardiovascular outcomes and the potential of shared decision-making as a driver of health equity so that everyone has just opportunities. Multilevel solutions must align to address challenges in policies and reimbursement, system-level leadership and infrastructure, clinician training, access to decision aids, and patient engagement to fully support patients and clinicians to engage in the shared decision-making process and to drive equity and improvement in cardiovascular outcomes.