Is interview a reliable method to verify the compliance with antihypertensive therapy? An international central-European study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Non-compliance with prescribed antihypertensive medication is an important contributor to the failure of antihypertensive therapy. OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of a short questionnaire in the identification of non-compliant patients. METHODS: In three central-European countries, work-site screening for hypertension was conducted. Blood pressure was measured using an automatic electronic blood pressure measuring device (BpTRU). Respondents were interviewed by trained personnel and a short questionnaire focused on blood pressure awareness and treatment compliance was completed. RESULTS: A total of 2812 persons were screened: 841(29.9%) respondents were hypertensive, and out of these the total number of treated hypertensive subjects was 359 (42.6%). Mean systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure were significantly lower in the compliant group than the non-compliant group (systolic blood pressure, 139.4 and 146.2 mmHg, respectively, P = 0.002; and diastolic blood pressure, 89.2 and 92.3 mmHg, respectively, P < 0.01). The non-compliant group was younger than the compliant group (mean age, 46.7 versus 48.9 years, respectively, P = 0.01). Females, patients on combined therapy and non-smokers were more compliant than males, those on mono-therapy and smokers (P = 0.01, P = 0.004 and P = 0.005, respectively). CONCLUSION: Patients reporting strict compliance with prescribed drug therapy have significantly lower systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure than those who admit even an occasional lapse in taking medication. A properly formulated questionnaire can identify non-compliant patients.
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 | 0.040 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".