Implementing a standardized community-based cardiovascular risk assessment program in 20 Ontario communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study is to describe the implementation of the Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP) in 20 mid-sized communities across Ontario, Canada, and identify key factors in the successful multi-site delivery of a collaborative cardiovascular risk assessment and management program. Lead organizations were identified and contracted following a request for proposals. An Implementation Guide detailed steps in community mobilization and delivery of volunteer-led pharmacy-based cardiovascular risk assessment sessions. Process data were collected through final reports; a debriefing meeting; and interviews with program staff. All 20 communities successfully implemented CHAP. Overall, 99% (338/341) of family physicians agreed to receive assessment results and 89% (129/145) of pharmacies held sessions. Five hundred and seventy-seven volunteers conducted 27,358 risk assessments for 15,889 unique participants. Essential program components were consistently included, however, variations in materials, processes and support occurred. Factors in program success included: local expertise, centralized support, identification and engagement of local physician and pharmacist opinion leaders and a balance of standardization and flexibility. Monitoring delivery of a multi-community cardiovascular risk assessment program yielded key factors in program success to inform development of a sustainable and transferable model.
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 | 0.021 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".