MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972189666 · doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2019.08.022

Grenada Heart Project–Community Health ActioN to EncouraGe healthy BEhaviors (GHP-CHANGE): A randomized control peer group–based lifestyle intervention

2019· article· en· W2972189666 on OpenAlexaff
Jacqueline Latina, Rodrigo Fernández‐Jiménez, Sameer Bansilal, Samantha Sartori, Rajesh Vedanthan, Marcelle Lewis, Claire Kofler, Marilyn Hunn, Francis Martin, Emilia Bagiella, Michael E. Farkouh, Valentı́n Fuster

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Heart Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Health and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHeart and Stroke Foundation
FundersHorizon 2020Instituto de Salud Carlos IIIH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsSt. George's, University of LondonEuropean CommissionCentro Nacional de Investigaciones CardiovascularesMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y UniversidadesAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)CohortPhysical therapyIncidence (geometry)Peer supportDemographyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The incidence of cardiovascular (CV) risk factors is increasing globally, with a disproportionate burden in the low and low-middle income countries (L/LMICs). Peer support, as a low-cost lifestyle intervention, has succeeded in managing chronic illness. For global CV risk reduction, limited data exists in LMICs. AIM: The GHP-CHANGE was designed as a community-based randomized trial to test the effectiveness of peer support strategy for CV risk reduction in the island of Grenada, a LMIC. METHODS: We recruited 402 adults from the Grenada Heart Project (GHP) Cohort Study of 2827 subjects with at least two CV risk factors. Subjects were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to a peer-group based intervention group (n = 206) or a self-management control group (n = 196) for 12 months. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in a composite score related to Blood pressure, Exercise, Weight, Alimentation and Tobacco (FBS, Fuster-BEWAT Score), ranging from 0 to 15 (ideal health = 15). Linear mixed-effects models were used to test for intervention effects. RESULTS: Participants mean age was 51.4 years (SD 14.5) years, two-thirds were female, and baseline mean FBS was 8.9 (SD 2.6) and 8.5 (SD 2.6) in the intervention and control group, respectively (P = .152). At post intervention, the mean FBS was higher in the intervention group compared to the control group [9.1 (SD 2.7) vs 8.5 (SD 2.6), P = .028]. When balancing baseline health profile, the between-group difference (intervention vs. control) in the change of FBS was 0.31 points (95% CI: -0.12 to 0.75; P = .154). CONCLUSIONS: The GHP-CHANGE trial showed that a peer-support lifestyle intervention program was feasible; however, it did not demonstrate a significant improvement in the FBS as compared to the control group. Further studies should assess the effects of low-cost lifestyle interventions in LMICs.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.367 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations25
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Heart JournalSame topicCardiac Health and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207