Self-management and blood pressure control in China: a community-based multicentre cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study explored the relationship between self-management and blood pressure (BP) control in China. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study. SETTING: Eight community health centres from four cities in the Northeast (Shenyang), Northwest (Xi'an), Southwest (Chengdu) and South (Changsha) of China. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 873 adults with hypertension, including 360 men and 513 women. Hypertension was defined as systolic BP ≥140 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP ≥90 mm Hg. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: BP control was the primary outcome variable. This was categorised as good control if individuals with hypertension reduced their BP to <140/90 mm Hg, otherwise, it was categorised as poor control. Secondary outcomes included self-management, defined as: (1) context or condition-specific factors or physical/social environments (eg, age, sex, marital status, education, personal income and health insurance) and (2) process or knowledge/beliefs, self-regulation skills/abilities and social facilitation (eg, treatment, diet, exercise and risk factor management). Data were analysed using logistic regression models using SPSS V.20. RESULTS: A total of 67.1% (n=586) participants had poor BP control. Limited outpatient care benefits in mainly rural residents (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.06 to 4.81) and longer disease duration (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.04) were associated with poor BP control. Self-management practices reduced the odds of having poor BP control (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.97 to 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: The individual and family self-management theory can serve as an effective theory for understanding the key contexts, processes and outcomes essential for BP control in China. Future research should evaluate the effect of a self-management intervention (eg, self-monitoring, medication adherence, regular and routine doctor visits, and social supports) for BP control in China using a multisite cluster randomised controlled trial. Sex and gender difference, cost and patient-reported outcomes should also be examined.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".