The impact of a cardiovascular health awareness program (CHAP) on reducing blood pressure: a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypertension is an important and modifiable cardiovascular risk factor that remains under-detected and under-treated, especially in the older individuals. Community-led interventions that integrate primary health care and local resources are promising approaches to improve awareness and management of hypertension and other cardiovascular risk factors. We aimed to evaluate the effect of a community-based Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP) on participants' blood pressure. METHODS: This study followed a cohort of community residents that participated in CHAP across 22 mid-sized Ontario communities over an 18-month period. The participants' baseline risk factors, including blood pressure, and subsequent measures of blood pressure were recorded. We employed a bivariate linear mixed-effect model to estimate the change of systolic and diastolic blood pressure over time among the participants who attended more than two CHAP sessions. RESULTS: Of 13,596 participants, 2498 attended more than two CHAP sessions. For those repeated participants (attending more than two sessions) initially identified with high blood pressure, the average reduction of systolic blood pressure was from 142 to 123 mmHg over an 18-month period, a monthly rate ratio of 0.992 (95% CI: 0.991,0.994; p < 0.01). Similarly, the average reduction of diastolic blood pressure was from 78 to 69 mmHg, a monthly rate ratio of 0.993 (95% CI: 0.991,0.994; p < 0.01). The average blood pressure of the participants with normal baseline blood pressure remained controlled and unchanged. We also found that older adult participants who lived alone, were diagnosed with hypertension, reported healthier eating habits, and presented with a higher baseline systolic blood pressure had significantly greater odds of attending more than one session. CONCLUSIONS: CHAP was associated with a reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressure for those participants who attended more than one session. The magnitude of blood pressure reductions was significant clinically and statistically.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".