Digital Interventions to Promote Self-Management in Adults With Hypertension: Protocol for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital interventions, defined as any intervention accessed and taking input from patients in the form of a computer/Web-based program or mobile phoned-based app, can potentially help empower patients to self-manage long-term conditions such as hypertension. Importantly, digital interventions have the potential to provide patients with personalized information and support for active involvement in treatment as well as cost saving. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize the evidence for using digital interventions to support patient self-management of hypertension, and determine their impact on control and reduction of blood pressure, other clinical outcomes, quality of life, medication adherence, health service utilization, and economic benefits. METHODS: A systematic search of bibliographic databases including Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO will be undertaken. Abstracts and citations will be independently screened by 2 researchers against predetermined inclusion criteria. Any disagreements will be resolved by discussion and further consideration of the inclusion criteria. Only randomized controlled trials which have been published in peer peer-reviewed journals with a diagnosis of hypertension will be considered. Inclusion criteria will be (1) adults (age ≥ 18 years) with hypertension (as defined by the primary authors); (2) an interactive digital intervention compared with usual care; and (3) outcomes of objectively measured change in blood pressure. Data extraction from identified articles will be undertaken by 2 independent reviewers using a uniform template. The main outcomes are systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and quality of life indicators. Secondary outcomes include cost- effectiveness, medication adherence, emotional well-being, and physical activity. Risk of bias of included studies will be assessed using the Cochrane tool. RESULTS: Our research is currently ongoing. Data will be summarized narratively, and if possible, meta-analyses will be performed to assess the impact of the interventions on outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: By summarizing and synthesizing available data, this review will help inform policy on the use of digital interventions for self-management of hypertension and will clarify areas for further research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero 2014: CRD42014010268; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp? ID=CRD42014010268 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6c5alQQJL).
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 | 0.071 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.006 |
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".