Validity of self-reported blood pressure control in people with hypertension attending a primary care center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to estimate the validity of self-reported blood pressure control and medication use in people with hypertension, with and without diabetes. METHODS: In a sample of 161 patients with hypertension in a family health team in Ontario, we applied questions from the 2009 Survey on Living with Chronic Disease in Canada Hypertension Component and compared responses against objectively measured and chart-abstracted clinical indicators. Objective blood pressure control was defined as a blood pressure of less than 130/80 mmHg and less than 140/90 mmHg for individuals with and without diabetes, respectively. RESULTS: Self-reported blood pressure control showed reasonable sensitivity (83±11 and 78±10%) but low specificity (30±19 and 58±21%) in people with and those without diabetes, respectively. In the subgroup with diabetes, specificity improved to 88±11% when blood pressure control was defined on the basis of a 140/90 mmHg target. Self-reported and chart-abstracted numbers of prescribed antihypertensive medications showed fair agreement (κ=0.7); 9 and 14% of patients overestimated and underestimated the number of prescribed medications, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although most individuals with controlled hypertension reported having controlled blood pressure, a large proportion of individuals with uncontrolled hypertension also reported that their blood pressure was controlled. This level of misclassification suggests that in a family medicine clinic population and in health survey contexts, a self-reported measure of blood pressure control may not be useful for assessing hypertension control.
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 | 0.009 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".