Implementing standardized performance indicators to improve hypertension control at both the population and healthcare organization levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to reliably evaluate the impact of interventions and changes in hypertension prevalence and control is critical if the burden of hypertension-related disease is to be reduced. Previously, a World Hypertension League Expert Committee made recommendations to standardize the reporting of population blood pressure surveys. We have added to those recommendations and also provide modified recommendations from a Pan American Health Organization expert meeting for "performance indicators" to be used to evaluate clinical practices. Core indicators for population surveys are recommended to include: (1) mean systolic blood pressure and (2) mean diastolic blood pressure, and the prevalences of: (3) hypertension, (4) awareness of hypertension, (5) drug-treated hypertension, and (6) drug-treated and controlled hypertension. Core indicators for clinical registries are recommended to include: (1) the prevalence of diagnosed hypertension and (2) the ratio of diagnosed hypertension to that expected by population surveys, and the prevalences of: (3) controlled hypertension, (4) lack of blood pressure measurement within a year in people diagnosed with hypertension, and (5) missed visits by people with hypertension. Definitions and additional indicators are provided. Widespread adoption of standardized population and clinical hypertension performance indicators could represent a major step forward in the effort to 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".