469 PATIENT PERSPECTIVES ABOUT MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF HYPERTENSION IS NOT RELATED TO BLOOD PRESSURE CONTROL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: We hypothesized that an open-minded investigation towards facilitation and barriers could lead to the identification of major themes in personal knowledge and attitudes to hypertension by patients. Design and Methods: A qualitative study of 26 adult hypertensive patients using semi-structured interviewing was conducted. Participants were recruited from hypertensive clinics at the University of Alberta; consented patients were subjected to semi-structured interview using a guide developed from current literature. Audiotaped interviews were transcribed verbatim. Duration of interviews was from 30 to 60 minutes. Results: Patients (aged 26 to 84 years old; mean 57.2) were stratified in the analysis by blood pressure control status (42% on target vs. 58% not on target). Three underlying themes were identified by patients: knowledge of blood pressure relating to diagnosis, management and control of hypertension, integration of hypertension management into daily routine, and feelings and beliefs about health and wellness. None of these were related to control of BP. Conclusions: The study reports the importance of patient perspectives and beliefs on their health, and showed substantial knowledge gaps. Findings may be useful in the development of an instrument to assess patient's personal barriers for control of hypertension.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".