Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertension affects 1 in 5 Canadian adults and is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Only 60% of those with hypertension are aware of their elevated blood pressure (BP). The Canadian Coalition for High Blood Pressure Prevention and Control has developed a model for increasing public awareness of hypertension as a risk factor for CVD. A random telephone survey of the general population over 35 was conducted in two mid-sized Ontario cities to determine baseline awareness. The survey quantified baseline demographics and personal history, knowledge of hypertension treatment and consequences, and attitudes towards hypertension. Utilizing the baseline survey results, a social awareness strategy and media campaign incorporating television, radio, print and interactive techniques will be implemented over a one month period in one city only (April, 2001). Both cities will be re-surveyed immediately following and at six months post media intervention. This abstract presents preliminary baseline survey results. Demographically, the 329 London Respondents (LR) were not significantly different from the 360 Kingston Respondents (KR) with respect to age or gender. However, KR had slightly more years of education than LR (13.41±2.96 vs. 12.76±2.78, p≤0.05). In London, 44.8% of all respondents knew their personal BP numbers versus 45.4% in Kingston. With respect to knowledge of normal BP, in both London (58.4%) and Kingston (64.2%) less than 2/3 of all respondents had correct knowledge of normal BP numbers. Regarding knowledge of consequences of high BP, KR (2.28±0.45) scored significantly higher (p≤0.05) than LR (2.14±0.45). KR also scored significantly higher than LR on knowledge of treatment of high BP (5.65±0.49 vs. 4.94±0.69, p≤0.05). Only 8.8% of LR and 12.2% of KR felt that high blood pressure was a serious concern and only 42.2% of LR and 47.8% of KR thought that blood pressure increased with age. Significantly more KR (43.3%) than LR (28.0%) had discussed the consequences of high blood pressure with their physician (p≤0.05). 77.6% respondents in London and 77.8% in Kingston stated they had previously been diagnosed with high BP. Among this hypertensive subgroup 84.5% of LR and 83.0% of KR were being treated with medication. Less than 1/2 of the medication subgroup reported being daily compliant (LR=46.9%; KR=48.8%). Of those respondents never diagnosed with high BP, 91.9% (LR) and 90.0% (KR) reported having their blood pressure checked over one year ago or never at all. Although there are small baseline differences between LR and KR, there is opportunity to increase awareness of the treatment and consequences of untreated high BP through a comprehensive media campaign.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".