Background: HIV prevention funds are often allocated by decision makers at multiple levels. High-level decision makers may allocate funds to regions, and regional decision makers then allocate those funds to specific programs. Often, funds are allocated proportionally (e.g., in proportion to HIV incidence) rather than efficiently (i.e., to maximize HIV infections averted). The authors investigate the impact of efficient and proportional allocation methods at 2 different decision levels.

Methods: The authors developed an optimization model of resource allocation at 2 levels-an aggregate upper level and multiple local levels-and considered efficient allocation and allocation proportional to HIV incidence. Using data from 40 U.S. states, they compared 4 strategies for allocating HIV prevention funds.

Results: The greatest health benefit (HIV infections averted) occurred when efficient allocations were made at both levels. When funds were allocated proportionally at the higher level and efficiently at the lower level, the health benefit was about 5% less than when efficient allocations were made at both levels. When funds were allocated efficiently at the higher level and proportionally at the lower level, the health benefit was 15% less than when efficient allocations were made at both levels. The least health benefit (23% less than when efficient allocations were made at both levels) occurred with proportional allocation at both levels.

Conclusions: Efficient allocation only at the higher level cannot overcome poor allocations at lower levels. Moreover, efficient allocation at the lower level is likely to yield greater gains than efficient allocation at the higher level. Thus, upper-level decision makers, such as donor organizations, should develop incentives to promote efficient allocation by lower-level decision makers.

Context: Without detailed evidence of their effectiveness, pedometers have recently become popular as a tool for motivating physical activity.

Objective: To evaluate the association of pedometer use with physical activity and health outcomes among outpatient adults.

Data Sources: English-language articles from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Sport Discus, PsychINFO, Cochrane Library, Thompson Scientific (formerly known as Thompson ISI), and ERIC (1966-2007); bibliographies of retrieved articles; and conference proceedings.

Study Selection: Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported an assessment of pedometer use among adult outpatients, reported a change in steps per day, and included more than 5 participants.

Data Extraction and Data Synthesis: Two investigators independently abstracted data about the intervention; participants; number of steps per day; and presence or absence of obesity, diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia. Data were pooled using random-effects calculations, and meta-regression was performed.

Results: Our searches identified 2246 citations; 26 studies with a total of 2767 participants met inclusion criteria (8 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 18 observational studies). The participants' mean (SD) age was 49 (9) years and 85% were women. The mean intervention duration was 18 weeks. In the RCTs, pedometer users significantly increased their physical activity by 2491 steps per day more than control participants (95% confidence interval [CI], 1098-3885 steps per day, P .001). Among the observational studies, pedometer users significantly increased their physical activity by 2183 steps per day over baseline (95% CI, 1571-2796 steps per day, P .0001). Overall, pedometer users increased their physical activity by 26.9% over baseline. An important predictor of increased physical activity was having a step goal such as 10,000 steps per day (P = .001). When data from all studies were combined, pedometer users significantly decreased their body mass index by 0.38 (95% CI, 0.05-0.72; P = .03). This decrease was associated with older age (P = .001) and having a step goal (P = .04). Intervention participants significantly decreased their systolic blood pressure by 3.8 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.7-5.9 mm Hg, P .001). This decrease was associated with greater baseline systolic blood pressure (P = .009) and change in steps per day (P = .08).

Conclusions: The results suggest that the use of a pedometer is associated with significant increases in physical activity and significant decreases in body mass index and blood pressure. Whether these changes are durable over the long term is undetermined.

We also explored the association between the number of antihypertensives and systolic, diastolic, and pulse pressure. After 15 months, 41% of participants met blood pressure targets. CKD was not associated with control (adjusted odds ratio: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.15). However, CKD was associated with higher odds of use of ≥3 medications among nondiabetic subjects (odds ratio: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.25 to 1.71) and diabetic subjects (odds ratio: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.66). A significant interaction was observed between CKD and the number of antihypertensives as determinants of diastolic and pulse pressures. Among non-CKD participants, a greater number of antihypertensives (0 compared with 4) was associated with wider pulse pressure ({Delta}5.2 mm Hg; P<0.001), mainly because of higher systolic pressures ({Delta}3.6 mm Hg; P=0.001).

Among participants with CKD, although greater numbers of antihypertensives were associated with even wider pulse pressures ({Delta}8.3 mm Hg; P<0.001), this was primarily because of lower diastolic pressures ({Delta}4.8 mm Hg; P<0.01). Among participants with CKD, greater use of antihypertensives was associated with lower diastolic pressures. Given recent evidence suggesting adverse effects of diastolic hypotension, these results suggest potential risks in patients with CKD from aggressive attempts to control systolic blood pressure.

This issue of CHP/PCOR's Quarterly Update covers news from the Spring 2007 quarter and includes articles about:

• the HIV/AIDS International Conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, that was attended by the CHP/PCOR National Institute on Drug Abuse project team;
• a special international health section that highlights HIV/AIDS research in Zimbabwe, and two Payne lecturer talks, given by David Heymann and Peter Piot, speaking on infectious diseases and HIV/AIDS, respectively;
• two Research in Brief selections -- one highlights health care financing structures in high-income countries, and the second covers an ongoing trial that incorporates a smoking cessation program into posttraumatic stress disorder treatment at the VA;
• a Staff Spotlight feature on new CHP/PCOR core faculty member Sally Horwitz;
• two conferences -- one hosted by the Stanford International Initiative and the other a National Summit on America's Children at the Capitol.

Background: Only 31% of Americans with hypertension have their blood pressure (BP) under effective control. We describe a study that tests 3 different interventions in a randomized controlled trial using home BP telemedicine monitoring.

Methods: A sample of hypertensive patients with poor BP control at baseline (N = 600) are randomized to 1 of 4 arms: (1) control group—a group of hypertensive patients who receive usual care; (2) nurse-administered tailored behavioral intervention; (3) nurse-administered medication management according to a hypertension decision support system; (4) combination of the 2 interventions. The interventions are triggered based on home BP values transmitted via telemonitoring devices over standard telephone lines. The tailored behavioral intervention involves promoting adherence with medication and health behaviors. Patients randomized to the medication management or the combined arm have their hypertension regimen changed by the study team using a validated hypertension decision support system based on evidence-based hypertension treatment guidelines and individualized to patients' comorbid illnesses. The primary outcome is BP control: ≤140/90 mm Hg (nondiabetic) and ≤130/80 mm Hg (diabetics) measured at 6-month intervals over 18 months (4 total measurements).

Conclusions: Given the increasing prevalence of hypertension and our inability to achieve adequate BP control using traditional models of care, testing novel interventions in patients' homes may improve access, quality, and outcomes.