MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059973713 · doi:10.1136/bmj.d442

Improving cardiovascular health at population level: 39 community cluster randomised trial of Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP)

2011· article· en· W2059973713 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Janusz Kaczorowski, Larry W. Chambers, J. Michael Paterson, Tina Karwalajtys, Tracy Gierman, Barbara Farrell, Beatrice McDonough, Lehana Thabane, Karen Tu, Brandon Zagorski, R Goeree, Cheryl Levitt, William Hogg, Stephanie Laryea, Megan Carter, Donna Cross, R. J. Sabaldt

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public HealthHamilton Health SciencesInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesÉlisabeth Bruyère HospitalUniversity of OttawaMcMaster UniversityChild and Family Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareCanadian Stroke NetworkGovernment of OntarioAustralian GovernmentInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesMcMaster University
KeywordsMedicinePopulationCommunity hospitalStroke (engine)Family medicineMyocardial infarctionCluster randomised controlled trialPharmacyPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialEmergency medicineInternal medicineNursingEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the community based Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP) on morbidity from cardiovascular disease. DESIGN: Community cluster randomised trial. SETTING: 39 mid-sized communities in Ontario, Canada, stratified by location and population size. PARTICIPANTS: Community dwelling residents aged 65 years or over, family physicians, pharmacists, volunteers, community nurses, and local lead organisations. INTERVENTION: Communities were randomised to receive CHAP (n = 20) or no intervention (n = 19). In CHAP communities, residents aged 65 or over were invited to attend volunteer run cardiovascular risk assessment and education sessions held in community based pharmacies over a 10 week period; automated blood pressure readings and self reported risk factor data were collected and shared with participants and their family physicians and pharmacists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Composite of hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and congestive heart failure among all community residents aged 65 and over in the year before compared with the year after implementation of CHAP. RESULTS: All 20 intervention communities successfully implemented CHAP. A total of 1265 three hour long sessions were held in 129/145 (89%) pharmacies during the 10 week programme. 15,889 unique participants had a total of 27,358 cardiovascular assessments with the assistance of 577 peer volunteers. After adjustment for hospital admission rates in the year before the intervention, CHAP was associated with a 9% relative reduction in the composite end point (rate ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 0.97; P = 0.002) or 3.02 fewer annual hospital admissions for cardiovascular disease per 1000 people aged 65 and over. Statistically significant reductions favouring the intervention communities were seen in hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction (rate ratio 0.87, 0.79 to 0.97; P = 0.008) and congestive heart failure (0.90, 0.81 to 0.99; P = 0.029) but not for stroke (0.99, 0.88 to 1.12; P = 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: A collaborative, multi-pronged, community based health promotion and prevention programme targeted at older adults can reduce cardiovascular morbidity at the population level. Trial registration Current controlled trials ISRCTN50550004.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations196
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207