Blood Pressure Awareness and Self-Monitoring Practices among Primary Care Elderly Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Seniors are perceived as relatively passive recipients of health care, and levels and predictors of blood pressure awareness and self-monitoring in these patients are poorly understood. Objectives: To determine the extent to which seniors are aware of their blood pressure status and targets and to examine correlates of blood pressure awareness and self-monitoring. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of a 32-item baseline questionnaire that was completed by patients aged 65 years and older who were attending pharmacy-based cardiovascular health promotion sessions. The study comprised sociodemographic data, as well as data on health-related quality of life, knowledge of current blood pressure readings and targets, and treatment and monitoring of blood pressure in the previous year. Results: Of the 983 respondents, 379 (38.5%) recalled their most recent blood pressure reading. For one-third of these respondents (323/983), their physicians relayed blood pressure targets; of these, 26.9% (87/323) reported targets consistent with current guidelines. Overall, 47.1% (463/983) reported monitoring blood pressure in the past year. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that older patients (aged 80 years and older) were less likely to know their blood pressure readings, compared with those who were younger. Patients with a postsecondary education, those who were diagnosed with high blood pressure, and those who were told their target blood pressure were more apt to know their readings, relative to those less educated, undiagnosed, or unaware of their target blood pressure. Participants who were aged 80 years and older were a negative predictor of self-monitoring in multivariate analysis, whereas living with someone, previous diagnosis of high blood pressure, and being advised of their target blood pressure were positive predictors. Conclusion: Seniors had a relatively poor understanding of their blood pressure readings and targets, but a subset was considerably more knowledgeable and potentially suited to be more involved in blood pressure self-management.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".