SummaryBackgroundStudies evaluating titration of antihypertensive medication using self-monitoring give contradictory findings and the precise place of telemonitoring over self-monitoring alone is unclear. The TASMINH4 trial aimed to assess the efficacy of self-monitored blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring, for antihypertensive titration in primary care, compared with usual care.MethodsThis study was a parallel randomised controlled trial done in 142 general practices in the UK, and included hypertensive patients older than 35 years, with blood pressure higher than 140/90 mm Hg, who were willing to self-monitor their blood pressure. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to self-monitoring blood pressure (self-montoring group), to self-monitoring blood pressure with telemonitoring (telemonitoring group), or to usual care (clinic blood pressure; usual care group). Randomisation was by a secure web-based system. Neither participants nor investigators were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was clinic measured systolic blood pressure at 12 months from randomisation. Primary analysis was of available cases. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN 83571366.Findings1182 participants were randomly assigned to the self-monitoring group (n=395), the telemonitoring group (n=393), or the usual care group (n=394), of whom 1003 (85%) were included in the primary analysis. After 12 months, systolic blood pressure was lower in both intervention groups compared with usual care (self-monitoring, 137·0 [SD 16·7] mm Hg and telemonitoring, 136·0 [16·1] mm Hg vs usual care, 140·4 [16·5]; adjusted mean differences vs usual care: self-monitoring alone, −3·5 mm Hg [95% CI −5·8 to −1·2]; telemonitoring, −4·7 mm Hg [–7·0 to −2·4]). No difference between the self-monitoring and telemonitoring groups was recorded (adjusted mean difference −1·2 mm Hg [95% CI −3·5 to 1·2]). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses including multiple imputation. Adverse events were similar between all three groups.InterpretationSelf-monitoring, with or without telemonitoring, when used by general practitioners to titrate antihypertensive medication in individuals with poorly controlled blood pressure, leads to significantly lower blood pressure than titration guided by clinic readings. With most general practitioners and many patients using self-monitoring, it could become the cornerstone of hypertension management in primary care.FundingNational Institute for Health Research via Programme Grant for Applied Health Research (RP-PG-1209-10051), Professorship to RJM (NIHR-RP-R2-12-015), Oxford Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, and Omron Healthcare UK.

Seven focus groups at a university campus were formed to identify college men's health concerns, barriers to seeking help, and recommendations to help college men adopt healthier lifestyles. Content analysis was used to identify and organize primary patterns in the focus-group data. Results of the study revealed that the college men were aware that they had important health needs but took little action to address them. The participants identified both physical and emotional health concerns. Alcohol and substance abuse were rated as the most important issues for men. The greatest barrier to seeking services was the men's socialization to be independent and conceal vulnerability. The most frequently mentioned suggestions for helping men adopt healthier lifestyles were offering health classes, providing health information call-in service, and developing a men's center. Implications of the results are discussed.

College men's health is in crisis, yet men are reluctant to seek mental health services. How can psychologists provide interventions to engage and empower college men to address their health needs? What are the components of culturally-tailored interventions for college men? We describe the origins and operations of a university-based Men's Center devoted to helping college men lead healthy lives. The Men's Center has evolved into a therapeutic and training approach that guides campus psychologists toward unique roles to intervene effectively with college men. Key components of the Men's Center Approach (MCA) include acceptance, nonjudgment and unconditional positive regard, respect for diversity, working from the inside-out, power sharing, strategic use of the planning process, therapeutic experiences in nontherapy settings, and fostering and strengthening commitments to social justice and activism. Central to these components is our notion of possible masculinity, in which we focus on men's aspirations and future goals for their identities and behaviors based on what men need to become healthy, responsible, and nurturing in their families and communities. Practical applications of these components are presented through examples of two Men's Center interventions. We conclude by discussing how psychologists can implement the MCA in their clinical practice with men to increase cultural competence with men while working across various settings.

Despite significant advancements in the counseling and study of the psychology of men, few researchers have addressed intersections among men's contexts, development, and health (Courtenay, 2011; O'Neil, 2008). The authors used Bronfenbrenner's ecological model (1979, 1986) to explore the relationships between masculinity ideology and adverse health outcomes. The ecological model is integrated with the men's center approach (Davies, Shen‐Miller, & Isacco, 2010) and “possible masculinities,” both of which can guide counselors in the design and implementation of systemic, culturally sensitive interventions for college men.

Interpersonal violence has a profoundly negative impact on individuals and our society. Health care providers are in a unique position to identify interpersonal violence, support survivors, and to contribute to violence prevention. The purpose of this article is to describe the nature, scope, and impact of interpersonal violence, its subsequent trauma on individuals, families, and society, and to delineate how providers can apply trauma-sensitive practice. The authors provide definitions, examples and prevalence rates and review theories of violence and violence prevention. They describe how to create a trauma-sensitive practice by being aware of the trauma that accompanies violence, the barriers to violence prevention, and how to intervene with patients about violence. Providers are urged to adopt universal screening practices, educate themselves on the nature of interpersonal violence and engage in screening, education, collaboration, and social justice activities to reduce interpersonal violence. Resources are provided to assist health care organizations, providers, and patients in addressing interpersonal violence.