Implementation of national guidelines, incorporated within structured diabetes and hypertension records at primary level care in Cape Town, South Africa: a randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Many clinical management guidelines for chronic diseases have been published, but they have not been put into practice by busy clinicians at primary care levels. This study evaluates the implementation of national guidelines incorporated within a structured diabetes and hypertension clinical record (SR) in Cape Town in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: Eighteen public sector community health centres (CHC) were randomly selected and allocated as intervention or control CHC. At each clinic, 25 patients with diabetes and 35 patients with hypertension were enrolled at baseline. Questionnaires were completed, blood samples were collected, blood pressure (BP) and anthropometric measures were taken and patient records were audited. SR with clinical guideline prompts were introduced at the intervention clinics after training doctors in their use and suggestions to incorporate them in regular patient records. Contact was maintained during the year of intervention with the clinic staff. A follow-up survey was conducted 1 year later to assess BP and HbA1c, and the patient records were examined to ascertain the extent of use of the SR in the intervention clinics. In-depth interviews were conducted with doctors and nurses to record their response to the intervention. RESULTS: The intervention evaluated in this RCT had no impact on either diabetes or hypertension control. In the intervention clinics, less than 60% of the patient folders contained the SR and when present was seldom used. Although the staff were well disposed to the research team, their workload prohibited them from undertaking a true evaluation of the SR, and overall they did not perceive the SR as supporting their current process of patient care. CONCLUSIONS: No benefit to diabetes of hypertension care by introducing and availability of the staff in the use of the SR was shown in this RCT. The process measures suggest that the SR was not widely used by the healthcare provided in the primary care clinics.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".