Table 1 Description of studies included in effectiveness review

 Pealing et al., 2019 [37]

(OPTIMUM-BP)

United Kingdom

Pregnant women with chronic or gestational hypertension without pre-eclampsia; authors did not report education or health literacy level of participants.

N = 53 (self, chronic); 30 (provider, chronic); 49 (self, gestational); 22 (provider, gestational)

RCT

Non-probability facility-based

Daily self-monitoring using an automated BP monitor (Microlife WatchBP) recorded on paper or submitted via text message or app; trained how to measure BP, symptoms of hypertensive disease in pregnancy, interpret readings using algorithm and when to contact provider – otherwise, received routine antenatal care.

Routine care at antenatal visits

 Kalafat et al., 2019 [36]

United Kingdom: London

Pregnant women with gestational hypertension; authors did not report education or health literacy level of participants.

N = 80 (self); 63 (provider)

Prospective cohort

Non-probability facility-based

Daily self-monitoring using an automated BP monitor (Microlife WatchBP) recorded on paper or submitted via app; trained how to measure BP, interpret readings using algorithm and when to contact provider – otherwise, received routine antenatal care.

Routine care at prenatal visits

 Perry et al., 2018 [38]

United Kingdom: London

Pregnant women with chronic hypertension, gestational hypertension, or high risk of developing pre-eclampsia; authors did not report education or health literacy level of participants.

N = 108 (self); 58 (provider)

Case-control

Non-probability facility-based

Daily self-monitoring using an automated BP monitor (Microlife WatchBP) recorded on paper or submitted via app; trained how to measure BP, interpret readings using algorithm and when to contact provider – otherwise, received routine antenatal care.

Routine care at prenatal visits

 Rayburn et al., 1985 [39]

United States: Ann Arbor

Pregnant women with chronic hypertension; authors did not report education or health literacy level of participants.

N = 33

Multi-cohort (prospective cohort for SMBP), retrospective cohort for provider)

Non-probability facility-based

Daily twice-a-day self-monitoring using a BP kit recorded on paper; trained how to measure BP, interpret readings and when to contact provider – otherwise, received routine antenatal care.

Historical group of women with chronic hypertension who received routine care at prenatal visits

 Fukushima et al., 2002 [34]

United States: Los Angeles

Pregnant women with pregnancy-induced hypertension. Women in the self-monitoring group were identified to be at most-risk by hypertension severity. Authors did not report education or health literacy level of participants.

N = 19 (self); 180 (provider)

Prospective cohort

Non-probability facility-based

Daily self-monitoring for several times a day at home using a system uniquely developed to measure cardiovascular dynamics data for this study, installation and user training for which were provided, with the women transmitting the results via facsimile equipment – otherwise, received routine antenatal care.

Routine care at prenatal visits

 Iwama et al., 2016 [35]

Japan: Sendai

Pregnant women including those with chronic hypertension but did not use antihypertensive drugs before 20 weeks’ gestation. Authors did not report education or health literacy level of participants.

N = 605 (self-monitoring performed within a week of clinic-based monitoring instance by all women)

Prospective cohort

Non-probability facility-based

At least one instance of BP self-monitoring within a week of clinic-based measurement using semi-automatic BP monitor (Omron HEM-747IC or HEM-7080IC)

One-time measurement at the clinic between using semi-automatic BP monitor (Omron HEM705IT)