Background::Exercise and medication have similar benefits in reducing blood pressure (BP); however, hypertension management initiatives primarily focus on medicines. This is due to scarce research on the effectiveness of implementation strategies for optimal exercise adoption and adherence. Smartphones were found to be effective in delivering hypertension care and increase exercise adherence. Despite this, only a small number of research projects in India have used smartphones as a strategy for managing hypertension.Methods::We hypothesized that smartphone application-based care would lead to higher exercise adherence among adults (30-79 years) with hypertension compared to those who receive usual care. It will be a multicentric, randomized controlled, parallel-design, superiority clinical trial. The outcome assessor and data analyst will be blinded to group allocation. Participants in the intervention group will receive mobile application-based care for 6 weeks. Participants in the usual care group will receive a standard intervention. Both groups will receive the same number of follow-ups.Results::The primary outcome is the difference in the proportion of people adherent to the recommended level of physical activity evaluated using an exercise adherence rating scale in the intervention group and the control group. Exercise adoption will be measured as the percentage of eligible participants in each study setting willing to initiate the exercise program. The secondary outcome includes differences in systolic and diastolic BP and self-management (evaluated using the Hypertension Self-Care Profile). The trial outcome will be accompanied by a process evaluation.Conclusions::This research will inform about the comparative effectiveness of conventional and m-health interventions for exercise adoption and adherence in people with hypertension in resource-constrained settings.

Background::Exercise and medication have similar benefits in reducing blood pressure (BP); however, hypertension management initiatives primarily focus on medicines. This is due to scarce research on the effectiveness of implementation strategies for optimal exercise adoption and adherence. Smartphones were found to be effective in delivering hypertension care and increase exercise adherence. Despite this, only a small number of research projects in India have used smartphones as a strategy for managing hypertension.Methods::We hypothesized that smartphone application-based care would lead to higher exercise adherence among adults (30-79 years) with hypertension compared to those who receive usual care. It will be a multicentric, randomized controlled, parallel-design, superiority clinical trial. The outcome assessor and data analyst will be blinded to group allocation. Participants in the intervention group will receive mobile application-based care for 6 weeks. Participants in the usual care group will receive a standard intervention. Both groups will receive the same number of follow-ups.Results::The primary outcome is the difference in the proportion of people adherent to the recommended level of physical activity evaluated using an exercise adherence rating scale in the intervention group and the control group. Exercise adoption will be measured as the percentage of eligible participants in each study setting willing to initiate the exercise program. The secondary outcome includes differences in systolic and diastolic BP and self-management (evaluated using the Hypertension Self-Care Profile). The trial outcome will be accompanied by a process evaluation.Conclusions::This research will inform about the comparative effectiveness of conventional and m-health interventions for exercise adoption and adherence in people with hypertension in resource-constrained settings.

Lumbar spinal steroid injections (LSSI) are universally used as preferred diagnostic or therapeutic treatment options before major spinal surgeries. Some recent studies have reported higher risks of surgical-site infection (SSI) for spinal surgeries performed after injections, while others have overlooked such associations. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the literature and perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the associations between preoperative LSSI and postoperative infection following subsequent lumbar decompression and fusion procedures. Three databases, namely PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library, were searched for relevant studies that reported the association of spinal surgery SSI with spinal injections. After the comprehensive sequential screening of the titles, abstracts, and full articles, nine studies were included in a systematic review, and eight studies were included in the meta-analysis. Studies were critically appraised for bias using the validated MINOR (methodological index for non-randomized studies) score. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the time between LSSI and surgery and the type of lumbar spine surgery. Meta-analysis showed that preoperative LSSI within 30 days of lumbar spine surgery was associated with significantly higher postoperative infection compared with the control group (OR,1.79; 95% CI, 1.08–2.96). Based on subgroup analysis, lumbar spine fusion surgery within 30 days of preoperative LSSI was associated with significantly high-infection rates (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 2.12–3.35), while no association was found between preoperative LSSI and postoperative infection for lumbar spine decompression surgeries. In summary, given the absence of high-level studies in the literature, careful clinical interpretation of the results should be performed. The overall risk of SSI was slightly higher if the spinal surgery was performed within 30 days after LSSIs. The risk was higher for lumbar fusion cases but not for decompression-only procedures.