Practice Facilitation and Peer Coaching for Uncontrolled Hypertension Among Black Individuals: A Randomized Clinical Trial

• Published in: JAMA internal medicine
• Main Authors: Safford, Monika M, Cummings, Doyle M, Halladay, Jacqueline R, Shikany, James M, Richman, Joshua, Oparil, Suzanne, Hollenberg, James, Adams, Alyssa, Anabtawi, Muna, Andreae, Lynn, Baquero, Elizabeth, Bryan, Joanna, Sanders-Clark, Debra, Johnson, Ethel, Richman, Erica, Soroka, Orysya, Tillman, Jimmy, Cherrington, Andrea L
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.05.2024
• DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.0047

Rural Black participants need effective intervention to achieve better blood pressure (BP) control. Among Black rural adults with persistently uncontrolled hypertension attending primary care clinics, to determine whether peer coaching (PC), practice facilitation (PF), or both (PCPF) are superior to enhanced usual care (EUC) in improving BP control. A cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted in 69 rural primary care practices across Alabama and North Carolina between September 23, 2016, and September 26, 2019. The participating practices were randomized to 4 groups: PC plus EUC, PF plus EUC, PCPF plus EUC, and EUC alone. The baseline EUC approach included a laptop for each participating practice with hyperlinks to participant education on hypertension, a binder of practice tips, a poster showing an algorithm for stepped care to improve BP, and 25 home BP monitors. The trial was stopped on February 28, 2021, after final data collection. The study included Black participants with persistently uncontrolled hypertension. Data were analyzed from February 28, 2021, to December 13, 2022. Practice facilitators helped practices implement at least 4 quality improvement projects designed to improve BP control throughout 1 year. Peer coaches delivered a structured program via telephone on hypertension self-management throughout 1 year. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants in each trial group with BP values of less than 140/90 mm Hg at 6 months and 12 months. The secondary outcome was a change in the systolic BP of participants at 6 months and 12 months. A total of 69 practices were randomized, and 1209 participants' data were included in the analysis. The mean (SD) age of participants was 58 (12) years, and 748 (62%) were women. In the intention-to-treat analyses, neither intervention alone nor in combination improved BP control or BP levels more than EUC (at 12 months, PF vs EUC odds ratio [OR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.58-1.52]; PC vs EUC OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 0.83-2.04]; PCPF vs EUC OR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.64-1.64]). In preplanned subgroup analyses, participants younger than 60 years in the PC and PCPF groups experienced a significant 5 mm Hg greater reduction in systolic BP than participants younger than 60 years in the EUC group at 12 months. Practicewide BP control estimates in PF groups suggested that BP control improved from 54% to 61%, a finding that was not observed in the trial's participants. The results of this cluster randomized clinical trial demonstrated that neither PC nor PF demonstrated a superior improvement in overall BP control compared with EUC. However, PC led to a significant reduction in systolic BP among younger adults. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02866669.