Persistence with hypertension treatment among community-dwelling BC seniors.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous research has documented low levels of persistence with prescribed hypertension treatment in Canada. With growing recognition of the value of appropriate drug therapy, rates of persistence may be improving over time. The purpose of this study was to examine persistence with prescribed hypertension treatment among newly treated community-dwelling seniors in British Columbia. METHODS: BC PharmaCare data was used to determine the cohort of seniors who were newly-treated hypertensives over the period 1993 to 2000. Medical and hospital claims from the BCLHD were searched for diagnoses indicating the presence of essential hypertension and potentially confounding conditions. Rates of persistence with drug therapy were analysed, accounting for patient, age, sex, clinical complexity, the existence of potentially confounding conditions, and type of drug first prescribed. RESULTS: For the period 1993 to 2000, 82,824 seniors were identified as new users of hypertension drugs with diagnosed essential hypertension. Fifty-one percent of these newly-treated hypertensives filled a contiguous series of hypertension prescriptions for at least one full year. There was a slight improvement in the rate of persistence over time (p<0.001). Evidence of specific co-morbidities that potentially complicate essential hypertension increased the likelihood of persistence among first-time users (p<0.001), whereas greater overall clinical complexity decreased the likelihood of persistence (p<0.001). Persistence was highest amongst patients initiated on newer anti-hypertensive drug therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Despite modest improvement, persistence with hypertension treatment among the elderly is very low. Further research into the reasons for non-persistence would be advanced through primary data collection, including survey-based research. New policies and practices are needed to encourage persistence with evidence-based therapies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".