Changes in the rates of awareness, treatment and control of hypertension in Canada over the past two decades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Analyses of medication databases indicate marked increases in prescribing of antihypertensive drugs in Canada over the past decade. This study was done to examine the trends in the prevalence of hypertension and in control rates in Canada between 1992 and 2009. METHODS: Three population-based surveys, the 1986-1992 Canadian Heart Health Surveys, the 2006 Ontario Survey on the Prevalence and Control of Hypertension and the 2007-2009 Canadian Health Measures Survey, collected self-reported health information from, and measured blood pressure among, community-dwelling adults. RESULTS: The population prevalence of hypertension was stable between 1992 and 2009 at 19.7%-21.6%. Hypertension control improved from 13.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 10.7%-15.7%) in 1992 to 64.6% (95% CI 60.0%-69.2%) in 2009, reflecting improvements in awareness (from 56.9% [95% CI 53.1%-60.5%] in 1992 to 82.5% [95% CI 78.5%-86.0%] in 2009) and treatment (from 34.6% [95% CI 29.2%-40.0%] in 1992 to 79.0% [95% CI 71.3%-86.7%] in 2009) among people with hypertension. The size of improvements in awareness, treatment and control were similar among people who had or did not have cardiovascular comorbidities Although systolic blood pressures among patients with untreated hypertension were similar between 1992 and 2009 (ranging from 146 [95% CI 145-147] mm Hg to 148 [95% CI 144-151] mm Hg), people who did not have hypertension and patients with hypertension that was being treated showed substantially lower systolic pressures in 2009 than in 1992 (113 [95% CI 112-114] v. 117 [95% CI 117-117] mm Hg and 128 [95% CI 126-130] v. 145 [95% CI 143-147] mm Hg). INTERPRETATION: The prevalence of hypertension has remained stable among community-dwelling adults in Canada over the past two decades, but the rates for treatment and control of hypertension have improved markedly during this time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".