
==== Front
PLoS One
PLoS One
plos
PLOS ONE
1932-6203
Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA

10.1371/journal.pone.0308485
PONE-D-24-06159
Research Article
People and Places
Population Groupings
Professions
Medical Personnel
Nurses
Medicine and Health Sciences
Health Care
Health Care Providers
Nurses
Medicine and Health Sciences
Vascular Medicine
Blood Pressure
Engineering and Technology
Measurement
Medicine and Health Sciences
Vascular Medicine
Blood Pressure
Hypertension
Medicine and Health Sciences
Health Care
Health Care Providers
Allied Health Care Professionals
People and Places
Geographical Locations
Asia
Pakistan
Biology and Life Sciences
Anatomy
Cardiovascular Anatomy
Heart
Medicine and Health Sciences
Anatomy
Cardiovascular Anatomy
Heart
Medicine and Health Sciences
Medical Conditions
Cardiovascular Diseases
Cardiovascular Disease Risk
Medicine and Health Sciences
Cardiology
Cardiovascular Medicine
Cardiovascular Diseases
Cardiovascular Disease Risk
Assessment of blood pressure measurement technique amongst nurses working at a tertiary care cardiac center
Blood pressure measurement technique amongst nurses
Younis Muhammad Project administration 1
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-2480-9629
Bhatti Khalid Iqbal Conceptualization Data curation Investigation Supervision 1 *
Chachar Kalsoom Project administration 1
Nazir Paras Supervision Visualization 1
Rafique Javaria Methodology 1
Khalid Areesha Writing – original draft 2
Karera Sanjana Formal analysis 1
Farooq Fawad Validation Visualization 1
Hakeem Abdul Writing – review & editing 1
Saghir Tahir Writing – review & editing 1
Sial Jawaid Akbar Writing – review & editing 1
1 National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases (NICVD), Karachi, Pakistan
2 Baqai Medical University, Karachi, Pakistan
Jibran Fahad Editor
Shaheed Montarma Benazir Bhutto Medical University, PAKISTAN
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

* E-mail: khalidsaindad@yahoo.com
19 9 2024
2024
19 9 e03084854 3 2024
22 7 2024
© 2024 Younis et al
2024
Younis et al
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Background

Accurate measurement is indispensable for effectively managing hypertension (HTN); any error in technique or instrumentation can lead to misdiagnosis and improper management. Thus, the present study aimed to assess the knowledge and skills of blood pressure (BP) measurement among nurses at a tertiary care cardiac center in Karachi.

Materials and methods

Nursing staff responsible for BP assessment at various stations were identified, observed, and interviewed to evaluate their skill and knowledge levels regarding BP measurement techniques. Nurses’ skill levels were assessed using a checklist based on the American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for BP assessment.

Results

Seventy-five nurses participated in the study, with 49 (65.3%) being male and a mean age of 32.1 ± 6.2 years. Only 25 (33.3%) nurses reported reading the AHA guidelines for BP measurement. None of the nurses demonstrated excellent skills; 19 (25.3%) showed good skills, while 56 (74.7%) showed poor skills in BP measurement. A poor compliance was observed on a total of 14/31 steps with compliance rate of less than 50%. Similarly, none of the nurses exhibited excellent knowledge; only 3 (4%) had good knowledge, while 72 (96%) had poor knowledge about BP measurement. A poor knowledge was observed on a total of 18/36 items with correct response rate of less than 50%.

Conclusion

Nurses working at various stations of a tertiary cardiac center exhibited inadequate skills and knowledge regarding BP measurement. This underscores the necessity for comprehensive training and education to enhance the accurate assessment of BP.

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Data AvailabilityAll relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Hypertension, defined as the persistent elevation of systemic arterial pressure above a predetermined threshold, is a widespread medical condition affecting approximately 1 billion individuals globally as of current estimates [1]. The World Health Organization (WHO) anticipates this figure to escalate to 1.56 billion by 2025, encompassing nearly 29.2% of the global populace [1]. Over the past few decades, the prevalence of hypertension among adults worldwide has surged from 594 million in 1975 to 1.13 billion in 2015 [2]. In developed nations, 30% of adults are hypertensive, a figure projected to soar to 60% in the forthcoming years [3]. In Pakistan, epidemiological studies have reported varying rates of hypertension, with figures ranging from 14% to 33% among adults [4–6].

Hypertension serves as a modifiable risk factor for numerous severe health conditions, including peripheral vascular disease, end-stage renal disease, stroke, myocardial infarction, and congestive heart failure, with it being the leading cause of mortality worldwide [7]. Uncontrolled hypertension significantly elevates the risk of heart attack, heart failure, kidney diseases, stroke, lifelong disability, and death [8]. While pharmacological interventions effectively mitigate the risk of coronary heart disease and other cardiovascular complications, non-pharmacological approaches such as lifestyle modifications also play a pivotal role in reducing morbidity and mortality among hypertensive patients [9].

Early detection of hypertension through screening and prompt initiation of treatment prior to the onset of target organ damage can prevent a substantial number of fatalities [10]. Despite clear guidelines on blood pressure measurement techniques, significant inter-observer variations persist, attributed to observer bias, faulty equipment, and lack of standardization in measurement techniques [11]. Studies have indicated suboptimal levels of knowledge, training, and awareness among healthcare professionals regarding blood pressure measurement techniques and equipment [12–15]. Accurate measurement is imperative for proper hypertension management, as any technical or instrumental error can lead to inaccurate diagnosis and subsequent mismanagement [15, 16].

Given that blood pressure measurement is frequently conducted by nurses in clinical settings, ensuring their proficiency and knowledge in this regard is crucial. However, local data on this aspect are often lacking. Therefore, this study aims to assess the knowledge and skills of blood pressure measurement among nurses at the largest tertiary care cardiac center in Karachi, Pakistan, with the goal of identifying any knowledge gaps and facilitating skill development to enhance hypertension management.

Methods

This cross-sectional study, a Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice (KAP) survey, was conducted at the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases (NICVD) in Karachi, Pakistan, the largest cardiac care center in the country. The research was undertaken as part of a fellowship in cardiology from the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan (CPSP). Ethical approval was obtained from the institutional review board (IRB), and all participating nurses were briefed about the study’s purpose and potential benefits. Verbal informed consent was obtained from each nurse regarding their participation and the publication of study results. Due to observational nature of the study, IRB waived the requirement of written consent and approved the use of verbal consent. The study spanned a period of six months, from 01/12/2021 to 01/06/2022.

Following approval, nursing staff meeting the inclusion criteria were observed and interviewed to evaluate their skill and knowledge levels regarding blood pressure (BP) measurement techniques. Nurses responsible for BP assessment across various stations, including the emergency department (ER), outpatient department (OPD), and hospital floors, were identified using a roster of nursing staff. The study employed a non-probability consecutive sampling technique. Exclusion criteria comprised doctors or non-nursing healthcare providers, nurses with less than six months of experience, and those who declined consent.

Observations of nurses’ skills were conducted in real-time as they assessed BP in patients, using a checklist based on the American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines [17]. The same sphygmomanometer was used for all nurses, provided by the principal investigator. Skill levels were categorized as excellent (≥80% steps correctly followed), good (60% to 79% steps correctly followed), or poor (<60% steps correctly followed).

Following the observations, nurses completed a self-administered questionnaire to assess their knowledge of BP measurement. Knowledge scores were calculated based on the percentage of correct responses, with categories defined as excellent (≥80% correct answers), good (60% to 79% correct answers), or poor (<60% correct answers).

Demographic data, including gender, age, qualification, years of experience, and time since last BP assessment training, were recorded on a structured proforma. To mitigate observer bias, a single observer with a predefined checklist was dedicated to all participants.

Sample size for the study was calculated with an expected percentage of poor knowledge regarding BP measurement as 19.6% amongst nurses [11], 95% confidence level and 9% margin of error the minimum required sample size for this study was calculated to be 75. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS version 21, with summary statistics computed for continuous variables and frequency distributions for categorical variables. Confounding variables were controlled through stratification, and post-stratification tests, such as the Chi-square test or Fisher’s Exact test, were applied to assess the impact of confounders on skill and knowledge levels. A p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

A total of 75 nurses were observed and interviewed in this study, out of which 49 (65.3%) were male and mean age was 32.1 ± 6.2 years. Only 25 (33.3%) read the AHA guidelines for BP measurement. None of the nurse showed excellent skills, 19 (25.3%) nurses showed good and 56 (74.7%) showed poor BP measurements skills. None of the nurse showed excellent knowledge, 3 (4%) nurses showed good and 72 (96%) showed poor knowledge about BP measurements (Table 1).

10.1371/journal.pone.0308485.t001 Table 1 Distribution of baseline characteristic, blood pressure measurement skill level, and knowledge level.

Characteristics	Summary	
Total (N)	75	
Gender	
Male	49 (65.3%)	
Female	26 (34.7%)	
Age (years)	32.1 ± 6.2	
Qualification	
Degree	61 (81.3%)	
Diploma	13 (17.3%)	
Certificate	1 (1.3%)	
Years of experience	9.7 ± 5.6	
Up to 5 years	18 (24%)	
6 to 10 years	34 (45.3%)	
> 10 years	23 (30.7%)	
Read the AHA guidelines for blood pressure measurement	
No	50 (66.7%)	
Yes	25 (33.3%)	
Years since last BP assessment training	9.8 ± 5.8	
1 to 2 years	2 (2.7%)	
3 to 4 years	3 (4%)	
> 4 years	70 (93.3%)	
Skills Level	54.5 ± 9.1	
Poor Skills	56 (74.7%)	
Good Skills	19 (25.3%)	
Excellent Skills	0 (0%)	
Knowledge level	48.2 ± 7.9	
Poor Knowledge	72 (96%)	
Good Knowledge	3 (4%)	
Excellent Knowledge	0 (0%)	

The distribution of PB measurement skill and knowledge level showed no significant association with any of the baseline characteristics, except for the nurses who read AHA guidelines for BP measurement, they showed relatively good knowledge (p = 0.012), Table 2.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308485.t002 Table 2 Distribution of blood pressure measurement skill level and knowledge level by baseline characteristic.

 	Skills Level	Knowledge level	
Poor	Good	Excellent	Poor	Good	Excellent	
Gender	
Male	34 (69.4%)	15 (30.6%)	0 (0%)	47 (95.9%)	2 (4.1%)	0 (0%)	
Female	22 (84.6%)	4 (15.4%)	0 (0%)	25 (96.2%)	1 (3.8%)	0 (0%)	
P-value	0.149	0.960	
Qualification	
Degree	46 (75.4%)	15 (24.6%)	0 (0%)	58 (95.1%)	3 (4.9%)	0 (0%)	
Diploma	9 (69.2%)	4 (30.8%)	0 (0%)	13 (100%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	
Certificate	1 (100%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (100%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	
P-value	0.756	0.699	
Years of experience	
Up to 5 years	14 (77.8%)	4 (22.2%)	0 (0%)	18 (100%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	
6 to 10 years	25 (73.5%)	9 (26.5%)	0 (0%)	32 (94.1%)	2 (5.9%)	0 (0%)	
> 10 years	17 (73.9%)	6 (26.1%)	0 (0%)	22 (95.7%)	1 (4.3%)	0 (0%)	
P-value	0.941	0.585	
Read the AHA guidelines for blood pressure measurement	
No	37 (74%)	13 (26%)	0 (0%)	50 (100%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	
Yes	19 (76%)	6 (24%)	0 (0%)	22 (88%)	3 (12%)	0 (0%)	
P-value	0.851	0.012	
Years since last BP assessment training	
1 to 2 years	1 (50%)	1 (50%)	0 (0%)	2 (100%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	
3 to 4 years	2 (66.7%)	1 (33.3%)	0 (0%)	3 (100%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	
> 4 years	53 (75.7%)	17 (24.3%)	0 (0%)	67 (95.7%)	3 (4.3%)	0 (0%)	
P-value	0.675	0.894	

The distribution of steps correctly followed by nurses using a 31-item checklist based on the AHA guidelines for BP assessment is presented in Fig 1. A poor compliance was observed on a total of 14/31 steps with compliance rate of less than 50%.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308485.g001 Fig 1 Distribution of steps correctly followed by nurses using a 31-item checklist based on the American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for BP assessment.

The distribution of correct response by nurses to the 36-item questionnaire knowledge assessment based on the AHA guidelines for BP assessment is presented in Fig 2. A poor knowledge was observed on a total of 18/36 items with correct response rate of less than 50%.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308485.g002 Fig 2 Distribution of correct response by nurses to the 36-item questionnaire knowledge assessment based on the American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for BP assessment.

Discussion

The findings of this study underscore the critical importance of ensuring accurate BP measurement, particularly in the context of managing hypertension. The results reveal a concerning gap in both the skills and knowledge of BP measurement among nurses at a tertiary care cardiac center in Karachi. With hypertension being a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally, the implications of such deficiencies in healthcare delivery are significant.

The fact that only a third of the nurses reported reading the AHA guidelines for BP measurement highlights a potential lack of awareness or emphasis on best practices in this crucial aspect of patient care. Additionally, mean years since the last BP measurement training was 9.8 ± 5.8 years with 93.3% of the nurses with last BP measurement training more than 4 years ago. This finding suggests a need for greater attention to training and educational initiatives aimed at familiarizing healthcare professionals with standardized guidelines and protocols for BP assessment.

The observed poor compliance rates and suboptimal skill levels among the majority of nurses further emphasize the need for targeted interventions to improve proficiency in BP measurement techniques. Inaccurate or inconsistent measurement practices can result in misdiagnosis, improper management, and ultimately, compromised patient outcomes [18]. Several studies have examined BP measurement practices among healthcare workers, revealing varying levels of adherence to guidelines and recommendations. Machado et al. [19] reported that only 65% of BP measurement steps were followed by nurses. In contrast, a study involving physicians indicated good adherence to BP measurement guidelines, although adherence evaluation was self-reported [20]. In this study poor compliance was observed on a total of 14/31 steps with compliance rate of less than 50%. These steps included; checking the stopcock on the bulb for any malfunction, advising patient to stay quite during BP taking, inflating the pressure 20 mmHg above radial pulse disappearance before started listening, waiting for 1 minute before taking 2nd reading, ensuring patient has emptied his/her bladder, asking questions about recent smoking, exercise, coffee/tea intake before BP taking, recording BP via palpatory method, palpating radial artery for palpatory method, measuring BP twice on a visit, using both arms for BP measurement on first visit, checking orthostatic hypotension, checking pulse for orthostatic hypotension, and waiting for 2–3 minutes after taking BP in lying position for orthostatic hypotension. Therefore, efforts to address these deficiencies should include not only education on proper technique but also ongoing monitoring and reinforcement of skills through regular training and quality assurance initiatives.

Similarly, the widespread lack of knowledge regarding BP measurement, with the vast majority of nurses demonstrating poor understanding of key concepts, is concerning. Several studies, including those by Machado et al. [21] and Machado et al. [19], have highlighted a pervasive inadequacy in knowledge regarding BP measurement among healthcare workers. Machado et al. [21] found moderate levels of BP measurement knowledge across various domains, while another study by Machado et al. [19] specifically noted poor theoretical knowledge among cardiac nurses in indirect BP measurement. Additionally, a study conducted in Nigeria revealed that the majority of healthcare workers lacked familiarity with guidelines and exhibited a low level of BP measurement knowledge [22]. This suggests a need for comprehensive educational programs that not only cover the technical aspects of measurement but also ensure a thorough understanding of the underlying principles and factors that may influence blood pressure readings.

Elzeky ME et al. [23] assessed the effectiveness of using WhatsApp as a distance education tool to improve BP measurement knowledge and accuracy among nurses. Results showed that after the intervention, the WhatsApp group demonstrated significantly higher knowledge scores and reduced errors in BP measurement compared to the control group. However, there was no significant difference in performance scores between the two groups, suggesting that a multimodal approach may be needed to enhance practical skills in addition to knowledge. Block et al. [24], who noted that a web-based educational program improved knowledge but not skills or attitude. Block et al. suggested a mix of live and web-based training may be needed for attitude and skill improvement. Conversely, Rabbia et al. [25] reported significant improvement in BP measurement technique after a 1-day face-to-face training program, and Machado et al. [21] found similar results with a 2-hour face-to-face training. Additionally, a study implementing a bundle intervention program saw significant improvement in BP measurement performance scores, attributed to addressing barriers and enhancing organizational awareness [26].

While our study comprehensively addressed both knowledge and skill levels through direct observation, it is important to acknowledge certain limitations. Primarily, our reliance on a single center and a relatively small sample size may restrict the generalizability of our findings. To ensure more robust and comprehensive conclusions, future research endeavors should aim for larger sample sizes encompassing diverse levels of medical and nursing education. This broader inclusion would provide a more accurate representation of BP measurement proficiency across various healthcare settings and educational backgrounds.

Conclusion

Nurses working at various stations of a tertiary cardiac center exhibited inadequate skills and knowledge regarding BP measurement. This underscores the importance of prioritizing training and education initiatives to enhance the skills and knowledge of healthcare professionals, particularly nurses, in BP measurement. By addressing these deficiencies, healthcare organizations can improve the quality of care provided to patients with hypertension, ultimately reducing the risk of complications and improving long-term outcomes.

Supporting information

S1 Dataset Dataset in excel format.

(XLSX)

The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the Clinical Research Department staff members of the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases (NICVD), Karachi, Pakistan.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308485.r001
Decision Letter 0
Jibran Fahad Academic Editor
© 2024 Fahad Jibran
2024
Fahad Jibran
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version0
25 Jul 2024

Assessment of Blood Pressure Measurement Technique amongst Nurses Working at a Tertiary Care Cardiac Center

PONE-D-24-06159

Dear Dr. Bhatti,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Fahad Jibran Siyal, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In the ethics statement in the Methods, you have specified that verbal consent was obtained. Please provide additional details regarding how this consent was documented and witnessed, and state whether this was approved by the IRB.

3. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ.

Comments from PLOS Editorial Office: We note that one or more reviewers has recommended that you cite specific previously published works. As always, we recommend that you please review and evaluate the requested works to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. It is not a requirement to cite these works. We appreciate your attention to this request.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper is interesting and novel and addresses an important gap in the current literature.

It si overall well written, but the discussion that should better highlight the importance of the vascular nurse. For this porpoise cite and comment the following paper: Ielapi, Nicola et al. “Vascular Nursing and Vascular Surgery.” Annals of vascular surgery vol. 68 (2020): 522-526. doi:10.1016/j.avsg.2020.05.038.

Reviewer #2: This article provides an insightful and thorough assessment of blood pressure measurement techniques amongst nurses, highlighting critical areas for improvement and training. The meticulous methodology and detailed analysis enhance the study's credibility and relevance.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Mir Hassan Khoso PhD, Associate Professor of Biochemistry

**********

10.1371/journal.pone.0308485.r002
Acceptance letter
Jibran Fahad Academic Editor
© 2024 Fahad Jibran
2024
Fahad Jibran
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
1 Aug 2024

PONE-D-24-06159

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bhatti,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Fahad Jibran

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE
==== Refs
References

1 Sarafidis PA , Li S , Chen SC , Collins AJ , Brown WW , Klag MJ , et al . Hypertension awareness, treatment, and control in chronic kidney disease. Am J Med. 2008;121 (4 ):332–340. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2007.11.025 18374693
2 Mahadir Naidu B , Mohd Yusoff MF , Abdullah S , Musa KI , Yaacob NM , Mohamad MS , et al . Factors associated with the severity of hypertension among Malaysian adults. PLoS One. 2019;14 (1 ):e0207472. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207472 30605462
3 Hajjar I , Kotchen TA . Trends in prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in the United States, 1988–2000. JAMA. 2003;290 (2 ):199–206. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.2.199 12851274
4 Jafar TH , Levey AS , Jafary FH , White F , Gul A , Rahbar MH , et al . Ethnic subgroup differences in hypertension in Pakistan. J Hypertens. 2003;21 (5 ):905–912. doi: 10.1097/00004872-200305000-00014 12714864
5 Shah SM , Luby S , Rahbar M , Khan AW , McCormick JB . Hypertension and its determinants among adults in high mountain villages of the Northern Areas of Pakistan. J Hum Hypertens. 2001;15 (2 ):107–112. doi: 10.1038/sj.jhh.1001131 11317189
6 Forouzanfar MH , Liu P , Roth GA , Ng M , Biryukov S , Marczak L , et al . Global Burden of Hypertension and Systolic Blood Pressure of at Least 110 to 115 mm Hg, 1990–2015 [published correction appears in JAMA. 2017 Feb 14;317(6):648]. JAMA. 2017;317 (2 ):165–182.28097354
7 Hassan MA , Mohamed MA , and Ghida NI . Determine prevalence of hypertension and risk factors among employees working at Port Said University. Med J Cairo Univ. 2013.81 (1 ):733–739.
8 Burt VL , Whelton P , Roccella EJ , Brown C , Cutler JA , Higgins M , et al . Prevalence of hypertension in the US adult population. Results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1991. Hypertension. 1995;25 (3 ):305–313. doi: 10.1161/01.hyp.25.3.305 7875754
9 Saleem F , Hassali AA , Shafie AA . Hypertension in Pakistan: time to take some serious action [published correction appears in Br J Gen Pract. 2010 Jul;60(576):536. Dua, Jalan Sungai [removed]]. Br J Gen Pract. 2010;60 (575 ):449–450.20529498
10 Mejzner N , Clark CE , Smith LF , Campbell JL . Trends in the diagnosis and management of hypertension: repeated primary care survey in South West England. Br J Gen Prac. 2017;67 (658 ):e306–e13. doi: 10.3399/bjgp17X690461 28347984
11 Mohan B , Aslam N , Ralhan U , Sharma S , Gupta N , Singh VP , et al . Office blood pressure measurement practices among community health providers (medical and paramedical) in northern district of India. Indian Heart J. 2014;66 (4 ):401–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ihj.2014.07.001 25173197
12 Zhang M , Zhang X , Chen F , Dong B , Chen A , Zheng D . Effects of room environment and nursing experience on clinical blood pressure measurement: an observational study. Blood Press Monit. 2017;22 (2 ):79–85. doi: 10.1097/MBP.0000000000000240 28134672
13 Rakotz MK , Townsend RR , Yang J , Alpert BS , Heneghan KA , Wynia M , et al . Medical students and measuring blood pressure: results from the American Medical Association Blood Pressure Check Challenge. J Clin Hypertens. 2017;19 (6 ):614–9. doi: 10.1111/jch.13018 28452119
14 Crosley AM , Rose JR . Knowledge of accurate blood pressure measurement procedures in chiropractic students. J Chiropr Educ. 2013;27 (2 ):152–7. doi: 10.7899/JCE-13-3 23957320
15 Armstrong RS . Nurses’ knowledge of error in blood pressure measurement technique. Int J Nurs Pract. 2002;8 (3 ):118–26. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-172x.2002.00348.x 12000630
16 Himmelfarb CRD , Commodore-Mensah Y , Hill MN . Expanding the role of nurses to improve hypertension care and control globally. Ann Glob Health. 2016;82 (2 ):243–53. doi: 10.1016/j.aogh.2016.02.003 27372529
17 Whelton PK , Carey RM , Aronow WS , Casey DE , Collins KJ , Dennison Himmelfarb C , et al . 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71 (19 ):e127–e248. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.11.006 29146535
18 Hwang KO , Aigbe A , Ju HH , Jackson VC , Sedlock EW . Barriers to accurate blood pressure measurement in the medical office. Journal of primary care & community health. 2018 Dec;9 :2150132718816929. doi: 10.1177/2150132718816929 30764705
19 Machado JP , Veiga EV , Ferreira PA , Martins JC , Daniel AC , Oliveira AD , et al . Theoretical and practical knowledge of Nursing professionals on indirect blood pressure measurement at a coronary care unit. Einstein (São Paulo). 2014;12 :330–5. doi: 10.1590/s1679-45082014ao2984 25295455
20 Dickson RC , Gaebel K , Zizzo A , Neimanis I , Bridge M , Corsini J , et al . Self-reported physician adherence to guidelines for measuring blood pressure. J Am Board Fam Med. 2013;26 :215–7. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2013.02.120024 23471937
21 Machado JP , Veiga EV , Ferreira PA , Martins JC , Atila E , Gimenes FR . Assessment of an educational intervention to improve nurses’ knowledge of blood pressure measurement. J Nurs Educ Pract. 2018;8 :56–62.
22 Ojo OS , Sogunle PT , Malomo SO , Adeyemo AJ . Knowledge of blood pressure measurement (BPM) among tertiary hospital staff in South West Nigeria and its related socio-demographic determinants. J Family Med Comm Health. 2018;5 :1153.
23 Elzeky ME , Shahine NF . Effects of an educational program using a virtual social network on nurses’ knowledge and performance of blood pressure measurement: a randomized controlled trial. BMC nursing. 2022 Dec;21 (1 ):1–0.34983509
24 Block L , Flynn SJ , Cooper LA , Lentz C , Hull T , Dietz KB , et al . Promoting sustainability in quality improvement: an evaluation of a web-based continuing education program in blood pressure measurement. BMC Fam Pract. 2018;19 :1–9.29291706
25 Rabbia F , Testa E , Rabbia S , Praticò S , Colasanto C , Montersino F , et al . Effectiveness of blood pressure educational and evaluation program for the improvement of measurement accuracy among nurses. High Blood Press Cardiovasc Prev. 2013;20 :77–80. doi: 10.1007/s40292-013-0012-5 23653174
26 Boonyasai RT , Carson KA , Marsteller JA , Dietz KB , Noronha GJ , Hsu YJ , et al . A bundled quality improvement program to standardize clinical blood pressure measurement in primary care. J Clin Hypertens. 2018;20 :324–33. doi: 10.1111/jch.13166 29267994
