Hypertension Treatment and Control in Five European Countries, Canada, and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Levels of hypertension treatment and control have been noted to vary between Europe and North America, although direct comparisons with similar methods have not been undertaken. In this study, we sought to estimate the relative impact of hypertension treatment strategies in Germany, Sweden, England, Spain, Italy, Canada, and the United States by using sample surveys conducted in the 1990s. Hypertension was defined as a blood pressure of 160/95 mm Hg or 140/90 mm Hg, plus persons taking antihypertensive medication. "Controlled hypertension" was defined as a blood pressure less than threshold among persons taking antihypertensive medications. Among persons 35 to 64 years, 66% of hypertensives in the United States had their blood pressure controlled at 160/95 mm Hg, compared with 49% in Canada and 23% to 38% in Europe. Similar discrepancies were apparent at the 140/90 mm Hg threshold, at which 29% of hypertensives in the United States, 17% in Canada, and </=10% in European countries had their blood pressure controlled. At the 140/90 mm Hg cutpoint, two thirds to three quarters of the hypertensives in Canada and Europe were untreated compared with slightly less than half in the United States. Although guidelines vary among countries, resulting in different case definitions, this does not account entirely for the varying success of different national control efforts. Low treatment and control rates in Europe, combined with a higher prevalence of hypertension, could contribute to a higher burden of cardiovascular disease risk attributable to elevated blood pressure compared with that in North America.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".