Chinese Herbal Therapy and Western Drug Use, Belief and Adherence for Hypertension Management in the Rural Areas of Heilongjiang Province, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) including Chinese herbal therapy has been widely practiced in China. However, little is known about Chinese herbal therapy use for hypertension management, which is one of the most prevalent chronic conditions in China. Thus we described Chinese herbal therapy and western drug users, beliefs, hypertension knowledge, and Chinese herbal and western drug adherence and determinants of Chinese herbal therapy use among patients with hypertension in rural areas of Heilongjiang Province, China. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: This face-to-face cross sectional survey included 665 hypertensive respondents aged 30 years or older in rural areas of Heilongjiang Province, China. Of 665 respondents, 39.7% were male, 27.4% were aged 65 years or older. At the survey, 14.0% reported using Chinese herbal therapy and 71.3% reported using western drug for hypertension management. A majority of patients had low level of treatment adherence (80.6% for the Chinese herbal therapy users and 81.2% for the western drug users). When respondents felt that their blood pressure was under control, 72.0% of the Chinese herbal therapy users and 69.2% of the western drug users sometimes stopped taking their medicine. Hypertensive patients with high education level or better quality of life are more likely use Chinese herbal therapy. CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE: Majority of patients diagnosed with hypertension use western drugs to control blood pressure. Chinese herbal therapy use was associated with education level and quality of life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".