Changes in blood pressure among patients in the Ontario Telehomecare programme: An observational longitudinal cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The objective of this study was to investigate the changes in blood pressure among patients enrolled in the Telehomecare programme in Ontario, Canada. Methods This observational study utilised a prospective longitudinal cohort design, including patients with heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease enrolled in the Ontario Telehomecare programme from July 2012 to July 2015. The outcome of interest was change in mean (biweekly) systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels over a six-month period. Patient data were extracted from the Ontario Telemedicine Network database, and analysed using generalised linear mixed model procedures. Results Overall, we analysed data for 3513 patients. Patients were on average 74.1 ± 11.4 years of age; almost half were men, 62% had heart failure, 55% chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and 29% diabetes. At baseline, the mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels were 130.4 ± 19.1 mmHg and 72.2 ± 12.5 mmHg for the total sample. At six months, the adjusted reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressure values were 4.0 mmHg (95% confidence interval: -4.5 to -3.5) and 2.7 mmHg (95% confidence interval: -3.1 to -2.4), respectively. In a subgroup of 1220 patients with uncontrolled blood pressure at baseline (systolic/diastolic blood pressure of 150.7 ± 10.2 mmHg/80.2 ± 13.5 mmHg) the adjusted reduction in systolic blood pressure was 12.5 mmHg (95% confidence interval: -13.4 to -11.6) and in diastolic blood pressure was 7.1 mmHg (95% confidence interval: -7.8 to -6.5) over the six-month period. Conclusions Blood pressure levels were significantly reduced in patients enrolled in the Telehomecare programme, with changes being more pronounced in patients with uncontrolled blood pressure. The sustainability of decreased blood pressure on other clinical outcomes needs further evaluation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".