Improving Hypertension Outcome Measurement in Low- and Middle-Income Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High blood pressure is the leading modifiable risk factor for mortality, accounting for nearly 1 in 5 deaths worldwide and 1 in 11 in low-income countries. Hypertension control remains a challenge, especially in low-resource settings. One approach to improvement is the prioritization of patient-centered care. However, consensus on the outcomes that matter most to patients is lacking. We aimed to define a standard set of patient-centered outcomes for evaluating hypertension management in low- and middle-income countries. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement convened a Working Group of 18 experts and patients representing 15 countries. We used a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on a set of outcomes, case-mix variables, and a timeline to guide data collection. Literature reviews, patient interviews, a patient validation survey, and an open review by hypertension experts informed the set. The set contains 18 clinical and patient-reported outcomes that reflect patient priorities and evidence-based hypertension management and case-mix variables to allow comparisons between providers. The domains included are hypertension control, cardiovascular complications, health-related quality of life, financial burden of care, medication burden, satisfaction with care, health literacy, and health behaviors. We present a core list of outcomes for evaluating hypertension care. They account for the unique challenges healthcare providers and patients face in low- and middle-income countries, yet are relevant to all settings. We believe that it is a vital step toward international benchmarking in hypertension care and, ultimately, value-based hypertension management.
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) | 0.001 | 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".