Clinical and Nonclinical Correlates of Adherence to Prescribing Guidelines for Hypertension in a Large Managed Care Organization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To examine correlates of guideline adherence in a population with access to health care and prescription drug benefits, the authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis among 5789 patients undergoing hypertension treatment with a single medication in a large New England managed care organization. Logistic regression was used to determine correlates of adherence, defined as use of diuretics or beta blocker as antihypertensive monotherapy during the 1-year study period. Women were more likely than men to receive guideline-adherent therapy (odds ratio [OR], 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-1.85). Compared with patients covered by health maintenance organization plans, Medicare coverage was positively associated with guideline adherence (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.13-1.69), but fee-for-service coverage was negatively associated (OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48-0.91). Patient age was not a significant correlate of adherence to guidelines (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.94-1.09). Understanding these observations may lead to strategies to improve guideline adherence and reduce health care disparities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".