**2.6 Pilot study**

The pilot study was done a month prior data collection when the research instrument was tested with ten files which were not utilised in the actual study. This was done to check if it could yield required information. The instrument was then revised and refined after the statistician checked it for validity and reliability.

Reliability of an instrument is a major criterion for assessing quality [12]. It is defined as the consistency and accuracy with which an instrument measures what is intended to measure. When used on repeated trials, an instrument with high reliability will produce the similar results [15]. To determine usefulness reliability of the instrument, the researchers utilised South African NDoH hypertension management

**231**

*Assessment of Follow-Up Care Received by Patients with Hypertension at Primary Health Care…*

guidelines. The guidelines support for a consistent standard of care across all PHC facilities in the country. Thus, the measuring instrument was considered reliable because it entailed attributes that are nationally recommended as the standard of care that hypertensive patients should receive during their follow-up visits. Content validity was proofed by aligning concepts with the hypertension management guidelines of the country's NDoH. Prior the actual real research study was conducted, a clinic that was excluded in the final study sample was piloted to test the data collection process. Inputs from clinicians were used to amend the data collection tool where necessary. Piloting was conducted between the first two

The ethics approval certificate (HSHDC/839/2018) was granted by the University

Data were collected by auditing the files of patients who were consulted for hypertension follow-up using a checklist. A checklist itemises task descriptions in one column and provides a space besides each item to check off items that are done or not done [16]. The checklist contains activities that must be performed on a follow-up visit for hypertension according to the National Guidelines, the APC and the EML. The checklist was distributed by the researcher herself at the chosen PHC facilities. Some amendments and modifications were made to the checklist following the pilot study. Data were collected over a period of two months (June and July

The managers of the selected PHC clinics were contacted in advance to inform them of the data collection date. Ten files were chosen per PHC clinic, and from these, the data were gathered. Files were physically collected from the filing room with the help of the administrative staff of the PHC facility. The researchers examined each file to check that it belonged to hypertensive adult patient, who was non-diabetic and not pregnant in order to adhere with the inclusion criteria. Once ten files that adhered with the criteria were found, the data gathering started. All 54 questions on the checklist were ticked/not ticked in accordance with either attribute was recorded or not recorded.

Data were coded and checked for correctness before being entered into a Microsoft Excel codebook. The data were analysed according to the following steps:

• the last year in which patient was seen at the clinic;

• characteristics of the sample;

• patient's history

• vital signs;

• physical examination;

• side room investigations;

• routine blood tests;

• life style assessment;

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99623*

2018), and all 100 checklists were completed.

months of the year 2018.

of South Africa (UNISA).

**2.7 Data collection**

**2.8 Data analysis**

*Assessment of Follow-Up Care Received by Patients with Hypertension at Primary Health Care… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99623*

guidelines. The guidelines support for a consistent standard of care across all PHC facilities in the country. Thus, the measuring instrument was considered reliable because it entailed attributes that are nationally recommended as the standard of care that hypertensive patients should receive during their follow-up visits.

Content validity was proofed by aligning concepts with the hypertension management guidelines of the country's NDoH. Prior the actual real research study was conducted, a clinic that was excluded in the final study sample was piloted to test the data collection process. Inputs from clinicians were used to amend the data collection tool where necessary. Piloting was conducted between the first two months of the year 2018.

The ethics approval certificate (HSHDC/839/2018) was granted by the University of South Africa (UNISA).

#### **2.7 Data collection**

Data were collected by auditing the files of patients who were consulted for hypertension follow-up using a checklist. A checklist itemises task descriptions in one column and provides a space besides each item to check off items that are done or not done [16]. The checklist contains activities that must be performed on a follow-up visit for hypertension according to the National Guidelines, the APC and the EML. The checklist was distributed by the researcher herself at the chosen PHC facilities. Some amendments and modifications were made to the checklist following the pilot study. Data were collected over a period of two months (June and July 2018), and all 100 checklists were completed.

The managers of the selected PHC clinics were contacted in advance to inform them of the data collection date. Ten files were chosen per PHC clinic, and from these, the data were gathered. Files were physically collected from the filing room with the help of the administrative staff of the PHC facility. The researchers examined each file to check that it belonged to hypertensive adult patient, who was non-diabetic and not pregnant in order to adhere with the inclusion criteria. Once ten files that adhered with the criteria were found, the data gathering started. All 54 questions on the checklist were ticked/not ticked in accordance with either attribute was recorded or not recorded.

#### **2.8 Data analysis**

Data were coded and checked for correctness before being entered into a Microsoft Excel codebook. The data were analysed according to the following steps:

