Assessing healthcare professional knowledge, attitudes, and practices on hypertension management. Announcing a new World Hypertension League resource
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assist hypertension control programs and specifically the development of training and education programs on hypertension for healthcare professionals, the World Hypertension League has developed a resource to assess knowledge, attitudes, and practices on hypertension management. The resource assesses: (1) the importance of hypertension as a clinical and public health risk; (2) education in national or international hypertension recommendations; (3) lifestyle causes of hypertension; (4) measurement of blood pressure, screening, and diagnosis of hypertension; (5) lifestyle therapy counseling; (6) cardiovascular risk assessment; (7) antihypertensive drug therapy; and (8) adherence to therapy. In addition, the resource assesses the attitudes and practices of healthcare professionals for task sharing/shifting, use of care algorithms, and use of registries with performance reporting functions. The resource is designed to help support the Global Hearts Alliance to provide standardized and enhanced hypertension control globally.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".