Development and Psychometric Validation of HIPER-Q to Assess Knowledge of Hypertensive Patients in Cardiac Rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The absence of instruments capable of measuring the level of knowledge of hypertensive patients in cardiac rehabilitation programs about their disease reflects the lack of specific recommendations for these patients. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a questionnaire to evaluate the knowledge of hypertensive patients in cardiac rehabilitation programs about their disease. METHODS: A total of 184 hypertensive patients (mean age 60.5 ± 10 years, 66.8% men) were evaluated. Reproducibility was assessed by calculation of the intraclass correlation coefficient using the test-retest method. Internal consistency was assessed by the Cronbach's alpha and the construct validity by the exploratory factorial analysis. RESULTS: The final version of the instrument had 17 questions organized in areas considered important for patient education. The instrument proposed showed a clarity index of 8.7 (0.25). The intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.804 and the Cronbach's correlation coefficient was 0.648. Factor analysis revealed five factors associated with knowledge areas. Regarding the criterion validity, patients with higher education level and higher family income showed greater knowledge about hypertension. CONCLUSION: The instrument has a satisfactory clarity index and adequate validity, and can be used to evaluate the knowledge of hypertensive participants in cardiac rehabilitation programs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".