Prevalence, Treatment, and Control of Hypertension in Primary Care: Gaps, Trends, and Opportunities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since most cases of hypertension are managed in family practice, estimates of the prevalence, treatment, and control in the primary care population are needed to adequately address the burden of hypertension in Canada as it has in other countries. The authors used a large primary care research database to determine the prevalence of hypertension between 2000 and 2003. Blood pressure recordings were used to estimate the rates of prevalence, treatment, and control of hypertension for the overall population and for important subgroups. The prevalence of hypertension was 17.3%, most patients had untreated hypertension (68.6%), and only 15.8% had blood pressure treated and controlled. Higher rates of treatment and control were observed among older adults, those with type II diabetes, and those with a previous myocardial infarction. Odds of achieving target blood pressure were significantly better when combination therapy vs monotherapy was used. The prevalence of hypertension in primary care is high and most patients remain untreated; however, increased risk appears to lead to better treatment and control.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".