Hypertension in an Emergency Department Population in Moshi, Tanzania; A Qualitative Study of Barriers to Hypertension Control

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Sub-Saharan Africa has a high prevalence of hypertension with a low rate of awareness, treatment adherence, and control. The emergency department (ED) may represent a unique opportunity to improve hypertension screening, awareness, and linkage to care. We conducted a qualitative study among hypertensive patients presenting to the ED and their healthcare providers to determine barriers to hypertension care and control. METHODS: In northern Tanzania, between November and December 2017, we conducted three focus group discussions among patients with hypertension presenting to the emergency department and three in-depth interviews among emergency department physicians. In our study, hypertension was defined as a single blood pressure of ≥160/100 mm Hg or a two-time average of ≥140/90 mm Hg. Barriers to care were identified by thematic analysis applying an inductive approach within the framework method. RESULTS: We enrolled 24 total patients into three focus groups and performed three in-depth interviews with individual providers. Thematic analysis identified two major domains: 1) patient knowledge, attitudes, and practices, and 2) structural barriers to hypertension care. Four major themes emerged within the knowledge, attitudes, and practices domain, including disease chronicity, provider communication, family support, and fear-based attitudes. Within the structural domain, several themes emerged that identified barriers that impeded hypertension follow-up care and self-management, including cost, access to care, and transportation and wait time. CONCLUSION: Patients and physicians identified multiple barriers and facilitators to hypertension care. These perspectives may be helpful to design emergency department-based interventions that target blood pressure control and linkage to outpatient care.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.