Psychobehavioral Profiles to Assist Tailoring of Interventions for Patients With Hypertension: Latent Profile Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines advocate combining pharmacotherapy with lifestyle counseling for patients with hypertension. To allow for appropriate tailoring of interventions to meet individual patient needs, a comprehensive understanding of baseline patient characteristics is essential. However, few studies have empirically assessed behavioral profiles of hypertensive patients in Web-based lifestyle counseling programs. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to (1) specify baseline psychobehavioral profiles of patients with hypertension who were enrolled in a Web-based lifestyle counseling trial, and (2) examine mean differences among the identified profile groups in demographics, psychological distress, self-reported self-care behaviors, physiological outcomes, and program engagement to determine prognostic implications. METHODS: Participants (N=264; mean age 57.5 years; 154/264, 58.3% female; 193/264, 73.1% white) were recruited into a longitudinal, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, designed to evaluate an online lifestyle intervention for hypertensive patients. A series of latent profile analyses identified psychobehavioral profiles, indicated by baseline measures of mood, motivation, and health behaviors. Mean differences between profile groups were then explored. RESULTS: A 2-class solution provided the best model fit (the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) is 10,133.11; sample-size adjusted BIC is 10,006.54; Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio test is 65.56, P=.001). The 2 profile groups were (1) adaptive adjustment, marked by low distress, high motivation, and somewhat satisfactory engagement in health behaviors and (2) affectively distressed, marked by clinically significant distress. At baseline, on average, affectively distressed patients had lower income, higher body mass index, and endorsed higher stress compared with their adaptive adjustment counterparts. At 12-months post intervention, treatment effects were sustained for systolic blood pressure and Framingham risk index in the adaptive adjustment group, and those in the adaptive adjustment group were 2.4 times more likely to complete the 12-month intervention study, compared with their affectively distressed counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions for patients who are adaptively adjusted may differ in focus from those designed for the affectively distressed patients. As such, this study underscores the importance of identifying psychobehavioral profiles, as they allow for evidence-based tailoring of lifestyle counseling programs for patients with hypertension. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01541540; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01541540 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6yzZYZcWF).
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 | 0.012 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".