Lifestyle counseling in hypertension-related visits – analysis of video-taped general practice visits
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The general practitioner (GP) can play an important role in promoting a healthy lifestyle, which is especially relevant in people with an elevated risk of cardiovascular diseases due to hypertension. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the frequency and content of lifestyle counseling about weight loss, nutrition, physical activity, and smoking by GPs in hypertension-related visits. A distinction was made between the assessment of lifestyle (gathering information or measuring weight or waist circumference) and giving lifestyle advice (giving a specific advice to change the patient's behavior or referring the patient to other sources of information or other health professionals). METHODS: For this study, we observed 212 video recordings of hypertension-related visits collected within the Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice in 2000/2001. RESULTS: The mean duration of visits was 9.8 minutes (range 2.5 to 30 minutes). In 40% of the visits lifestyle was discussed (n = 84), but in 81% of these visits this discussion lasted shorter than a quarter of the visit. An assessment of lifestyle was made in 77 visits (36%), most commonly regarding body weight and nutrition. In most cases the patient initiated the discussion about nutrition and physical activity, whereas the assessment of weight and smoking status was mostly initiated by the GP. In 35 visits (17%) the GP gave lifestyle advice, but in only one fifth of these visits the patient's motivation or perceived barriers for changing behavior were assessed. Supporting factors were not discussed at all. CONCLUSION: In 40% of the hypertension-related visits lifestyle topics were discussed. However, both the frequency and quality of lifestyle advice can be improved.
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it