MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809125764 · doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2018.06.004

Rationale and design of a cluster randomized trial of a multifaceted intervention in people with hypertension: The Heart Outcomes Prevention and Evaluation 4 (HOPE-4) Study

2018· article· en· W2809125764 on OpenAlexafffund
Jon-David R. Schwalm, Tara McCready, Pablo Lamelas, Hadi Musa, Patricio López‐Jaramillo, Khalid Yusoff, Martin McKee, Paul Anthony Camacho, José López-López, Fadhlina Abd Majid, Lehana Thabane, Shofiqul Islam, Salim Yusuf

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Heart Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsImpactPopulation Health Research InstituteMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGrand Challenges CanadaBoehringer Ingelheim
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Cluster randomised controlled trialFramingham Risk ScoreBlood pressureCluster (spacecraft)Family medicineHealth careCommunity healthPhysical therapyDiseaseGerontologyNursingPublic healthSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death throughout the world, with the majority of deaths occurring in low- and middle-income countries. Despite clear evidence for the benefits of blood pressure reduction and availability of safe and low-cost medications, most individuals are either unaware of their condition or not adequately treated. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study is to evaluate whether a community-based, multifaceted intervention package primarily provided by nonphysician health workers can improve long-term cardiovascular risk in people with hypertension by addressing identified barriers at the patient, health care provider, and health system levels. METHODS/DESIGN: HOPE-4 is a community-based, parallel-group, cluster randomized controlled trial involving 30 communities (1,376 participants) in Colombia and Malaysia. Participants ≥50 years old and with newly diagnosed or poorly controlled hypertension were included. Communities were randomized to usual care or to a multifaceted intervention package that entails (1) detection, treatment, and control of cardiovascular risk factors by nonphysician health workers in the community, who use tablet-based simplified management algorithms, decision support, and counseling programs; (2) free dispensation of combination antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering medications, supervised by local physicians; and (3) support from a participant-nominated treatment supporter (either a friend or family member). The primary outcome is the change in Framingham Risk Score after 12 months between the intervention and control communities. Secondary outcomes including change in blood pressure, lipid levels, and Interheart Risk Score will be evaluated. SIGNIFICANCE: If successful, the study could serve as a model to develop low-cost, effective, and scalable strategies to reduce cardiovascular risk in people with 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Heart JournalSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207