Patients´ blood pressure knowledge, perceptions and monitoring practices in community pharmacies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Hypertension is a modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Despite this, patients often cannot or inaccurately estimate their risk factors. OBJECTIVES: IN ORDER TO IMPROVE PHARMACIST INTERVENTIONS, WE SOUGHT TO: 1) find out patients' knowledge about blood pressure (BP) and their self-monitoring behaviors and 2) identify the relationships between these two elements. Specifically, if evaluation of BP control were related to knowledge of one's BP level and self-monitoring habits, and if knowledge of one's target and BP level varied with monitoring habits. METHODS: Final year pharmacy students were trained and interviewed patients in community pharmacies as a required exercise in their pharmacy clerkship. Each student recruited a convenience sample of 5-10 patients who were on hypertension medication, and surveyed them regarding their BP targets, recent BP levels as well as monthly and home BP monitoring practices. RESULTS: One third of the 449 patients interviewed were able to report a blood pressure target with 26% reporting a JNC 7 recognized target. Three quarters of patients who reported a blood pressure target were able to report a blood pressure level, with 12% being at their self-reported target. Roughly two thirds of patients perceived their BP to be "about right", and slightly less than a third thought it to be "high". Sixty percent of patients monitor their BP monthly, but less than 50% of patients practice home BP monitoring. CONCLUSIONS: This study along with others before it point to the knowledge and self-management gaps in patients with chronic conditions. Furthermore, pharmacy students were able to use a brief intervention to screen patients during routine care. Pharmacists can help improve patient understanding and promote increased self-management through regular BP monitoring.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".