The effect of a patient education booklet and BP 'tracker' on knowledge about hypertension. A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Home blood pressure (BP) monitoring is increasingly prevalent. The Canadian Hypertension Education Program (CHEP) developed a Family Practice BP tracking diary for home readings with an educational booklet. We evaluated the effectiveness of these tools compared with the standard approach of a hypertension information leaflet on BP-related knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of hypertensive family practice patients. METHOD: Single-blind randomized control trial on patients with raised BP. RESULTS: Three practices in Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia recruited a total of 109 eligible patients. The average age was 66.1 (SD 9.3) years and 58 (54.7%) were male. There was a statistically significant increase in the mean number of correct responses to 20 hypertension knowledge questions of 1.14 from 15.3 (SD 2.2) at baseline to 16.4 (SD 2.2) at 3 months in both groups (n=72, P<0.001). Patients frequently did not realize that usually more than one drug plus lifestyles changes were necessary to reduce BP to target or that it might take 6 weeks for some drugs to achieve their full effect. The BP tracking diary and the booklet had positive evaluation from the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients have a good baseline of knowledge about hypertension but there are still important areas that need to be addressed. The booklet and tracker were well received by patients but the simple leaflet was as effective at improving knowledge.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".