MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2563399029 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v7n6p1

Prevalence and awareness of hypertension among Sudanese rural population, Sinnar State, Sudan, 2016

2017· article· en· W2563399029 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Badria A Elfaki, Hassanat E Mustafa, Mustafa Khidir Mustafa Elnimeiri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUmm Al-Qura University
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureCluster samplingPopulationRural communityRural populationCross-sectional studyDemographyPhysical therapyPediatricsInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The aim of this study to estimate the prevalence of hypertension and determine awareness among rural population.Methods: Cross-sectional community based study, conducted in rural community. Population was the resident citizens in age of 25-64 years. A cluster sampling technique was used and total sample size mounted to 341 subjects. The collected data was cleaned, edited and analyzed using SPSS program.Results: Prevalence of hypertension was 21.1%, systolic was 5.9% and diastolic hypertension was 10.0% with no significant differences among gender (p-value .409). About 59.7% of hypertensive subjects were unaware with their diagnosis, men were more awareness than women with proportion of 62.0% in men and 38.0% in women. Awareness with hypertension diagnosed was increased by increasing age, income and education. Most of known hypertensive subjects (86.20%) were on treatment. Approximately 80% of known hypertensive subjects were complained of signs and symptoms and 31.0% with complications. Also controlled blood pressure was 34.0% with proportion of 36.4% among women and 33.3% among men.Conclusions: The study reflected high prevalence of hypertension, systolic and diastolic among rural population, also the level of awareness among hypertensive subjects generally was low; however the level of awareness among elder, educated was better and females were more control 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207