Hypertension knowledge, attitudes, and practices of nurses and physicians in primary care in Ulaanbaatar Mongolia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increased blood pressure is a leading risk for death globally, and interventions to enhance hypertension control have become a high priority. An important aspect of clinical interventions is understanding the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of differing primary healthcare practitioners. We examined KAP surveys from 803 primary care practitioners in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia (response rate 80%), using a comprehensive KAP survey developed by the World Hypertension League (WHL). The WHL KAP survey uniquely includes an assessment of key World Health Organization recommended interventions to enhance hypertension control. There were few substantive differences between healthcare professional disciplines. Primary care practitioners mostly had a positive attitude toward hypertension management. However, confidence and practice in performing specific tasks to control hypertension were suboptimal. A low proportion indicated they systematically screened adults for hypertension and many were not aware of the need to or were confident in prescribing more than two antihypertensive medications. It was the practice of a high proportion of doctors to not pharmacologically treat most people with hypertension who were at high cardiovascular risk. There was a reluctance by physicians to task share hypertension diagnosis, drug prescribing and assessing cardiovascular risk to nurses. The minority of health care professions use a hypertension management algorithm, and few have patient registries with performance reporting functions. There were few substantive differences based on the age, gender, and years of clinical practice of the practitioners. The study findings support the need for standardized education and training of primary care practitioners in Ulaanbaatar to enhance hypertension control.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".