Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective communication is a prerequisite for any successful encounter between patient and provider. Nevertheless, it is unclear how/where communication can impact/affect adherence to antihypertensive medication, and maintenance of lifestyle changes to control blood pressure targets. Poor physician communication is correlated with a higher risk of treatment nonadherence. Given the high rates of hypertension globally, this review serves to enlighten aspects of the communication exchange from a provider, context, and patient perspective. Relevant articles were analyzed to assess barriers, solutions, and optimizations for communication with hypertensive patients. To support the findings, a model of communication in the context of hypertension treatment is presented, which comprises three phases: comprehension and acceptance, translation into action, and long-term retention. Secondly, an analysis of care providers (bedside manner, verbal/nonverbal communication, empathy and sex, time, knowledge base), context (format and tailoring of the message, and physical environment), and patient-related factors (sex, socio-economic status, language and health literacy, culture, age, psychological factors) were assessed in relation to hypertension. Current literature is limited regarding reciprocal communication, adaptive packaging of messages, and active verification of effective communication. To improve communication, hypertension care programs could benefit from better communication training, more team-based approaches, and flexible tools based on information technology.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".