Barriers to Blood Pressure Control: A STITCH Substudy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite improvements in blood pressure (BP) control, a substantial percentage of patients do not achieve target. The relative importance of determinants of poor BP control is unclear. Therefore, the authors conducted a post hoc exploratory analysis to assess determinants of BP control. Data were collected in 45 general practices, which enrolled patients with uncontrolled hypertension. Antihypertensive medication changes throughout the 6-month follow-up period were documented. Baseline and 6-month BPs were recorded. Of the 2030 patients analyzed, 320 had diabetes. Overall, 42% of patients did not achieve BP control. In multivariate analysis, failure to intensify therapy was identified as a significant independent predictor of lesser BP reduction. Of patients unable to reach target after 6 months, only 25% were prescribed ≥ 3 drugs. Patients with diabetes were significantly less likely to reach target than those without (26% vs 64%, P<.001). Antihypertensive therapy prescribed to patients with diabetes was only marginally more intensive than to those without. In patients with hypertension, whether with or without coexisting diabetes, poor BP control appears to be at least partially due to failure to uptitrate antihypertensive therapy. Clinical inertia is likely an important barrier to BP 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 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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".