Attitudes of primary care physicians and their patients about home blood pressure monitoring in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Guidelines recommend home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) to improve blood pressure control, but the attitudes of primary care physicians and their hypertensive patients towards its use are not known. METHODS: A 28-item self-administered survey about home blood pressure monitoring was mailed to a random sample of 1418 primary care physicians in Ontario and 765 (55%) were returned. Of the 478 physicians treating hypertension, 299 agreed to give surveys to their hypertensive patients. We received 149 patient surveys. RESULTS: The majority of primary care physicians (63%) often or almost always encouraged their hypertensive patients to monitor their own blood pressure at home. Only 13%, however, preferred home blood pressure monitoring to office or ambulatory readings for diagnostic purposes and 19%, to guide therapy. Physicians had concerns about patients becoming preoccupied with home monitoring (70%) and the accuracy of home devices (65%). Most patients (78%) had a device at home, and 84% indicated that their doctor encouraged them to measure blood pressure. Yet, 80% received no advice from their physician on the type of device to purchase, only 8% had specific training on proper measurement technique, 68% did not regularly take the results to the doctor and 39% did nothing specific about alarming readings. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians prefer office or ambulatory to home readings to make diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. While home monitoring is popular among patients, its clinical usefulness is undermined by the lack of reliable purchasing information, standard measurement protocols, proper training on measurement technique and specific instructions on handling and interpreting results.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".