Hypertension Attitude PersPEctives and Needs (HAPPEN): A Real‐World Survey of Physicians and Patients With Hypertension in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Hypertension Attitude PersPEctives and Needs (HAPPEN) survey was a real-world survey of cardiologists, nephrologists, and patients with treated hypertension at level 3 hospitals in China. It aimed to characterize the attitudes and behavior of physicians and patients and to identify possible causes of poor blood pressure (BP) control. Randomly selected participants (100 cardiologists, 30 nephrologists, 400 patients) completed face-to-face interviews investigating BP control rates, consulting behavior, prescribing patterns, and attitudes toward hypertension management. Perceived levels of BP control were high; 70% of physicians and 85% of patients believed that BP targets were achieved, despite only 31% of patients achieving targets. Physician satisfaction with control rates and patient satisfaction with treatment were high. Differences in perceived and actual levels of BP control may be driving therapeutic inertia. In combination with inadequate patient evaluation and support services, therapeutic inertia may contribute to poor BP control among patients with treated hypertension in China.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".