Health-related quality of life in hypertension: impact of a pharmacy intervention programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In a previous study, we observed that a pharmacy-based intervention programme decreased the blood pressure of hypertensive patients. The objective of the present study was to assess the effect of this pharmacy programme on the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of individuals treated for hypertension. METHODS: In a quasi-experimental cohort pilot study, we recruited 91 participants from nine pharmacies in the Quebec City area. We offered the intervention programme over a 9-month period to participants enrolled at four of the pharmacies. The other participants were not exposed to pharmaceutical services other than those usually given by their pharmacists. We used the SF-36 to evaluate HRQOL. Covariance analysis was used to test for significant differences of HRQOL scores between participants exposed and not exposed to the programme. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: When compared with the non-exposed participants, those receiving the intervention and with high income had an improvement in vitality score (P=0.05). On the contrary, low-income exposed participants did not show this benefit and had a decline in mental health score (P=0.01). Improvement in vitality is likely due to increased physical activity and to a reduction in systolic blood pressure in the high-income exposed group. The negative effect of the programme on the mental health of those exposed in the low-income group might be due to the fact that the programme was not effective in reducing blood pressure and may therefore have caused anxiety. CONCLUSION: Pharmacists' interventions can have both a positive and negative impact on the HRQOL of individuals, treated with antihypertensive agents, depending on income level.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".