Health Literacy in Rural Areas of China: Hypertension Knowledge Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted this study to determine levels and correlates of hypertension knowledge among rural Chinese adults, and to assess the association between knowledge levels and salty food consumption among hypertensive and non-hypertensive populations. This face-to-face cross sectional survey included 665 hypertensive and 854 non-hypertensive respondents in the rural areas of Heilongjiang province, China. Hypertension knowledge was assessed through a 10-item test; respondents received 10 points for each correct answer. Among respondents, the average hypertension knowledge score was 26 out of a maximum of 100 points for hypertensive and 20 for non-hypertensive respondents. Hypertension knowledge was associated with marital status, education, health status, periodically reading books, newspapers or other materials, history of blood pressure measurement, and attending hypertension educational sessions. Hypertension knowledge is extremely low in rural areas of China. Hypertension education programs should focus on marginal populations, such as individuals who are not married or illiterate to enhance their knowledge levels. Focusing on educational and literacy levels in conjunction with health education is important given illiteracy is still a prominent issue for the Chinese rural population.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".