MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009148740 · doi:10.1097/mbp.0000000000000436

Home blood pressure monitoring and e-Health: investigation of patients’ experience with the Hy-Result system

2020· article· en· W3009148740 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolas Postel‐Vinay, Olivier Steichen, Emmanuelle Pébelier, Alexandre Persu, E. Berra, Guillaume Bobrie, Sébastien Savard, J. Lima Nogueria, Michel Azizi

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Pressure Monitoring · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHôtel-Dieu de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFeelingBlood pressureFocus groupAnxietyMedical recordMedical diagnosisMedical emergencyFamily medicinePsychiatryPsychologySurgeryInternal medicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hy-Result is a validated system designed to help patients complying with the home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) protocol and understanding their blood pressure (BP) readings. It is available as a standalone web application or within a wireless BP monitor app. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to explore patients' experience with Hy-Result. METHODS: Online survey completed by 512 users of the Hy-Result web application or monitor app, and three focus groups with 24 hypertensive patients who monitor their BP at home and use the Hy-Result web application to record their data. We assessed the experience of patients with the functionalities and medical content of Hy-Result, their feelings and expectations, and the impact of Hy-Result on the physician-patient relationship. RESULTS: (1) Functionalities: Over 90% of survey respondents and all focus group participants found Hy-Result easy to use. The main drawback of the web application is the need to manually enter all BP values at once. (2) Medical content: Hy-Result offers information on arterial hypertension and HBPM that most patients found useful. Users found that Hy-Result triggers appropriate reactions to BP readings, including adequately timed general practitioner visits. (3) Feelings and expectations: Over 90% of survey respondents trust Hy-Result and focus group participants understood that text messages are suggestions, not diagnoses. Hy-Result did not cause anxiety or excessive BP measurements. (4) Physician-patient relationship: Three-quarter of survey respondents agreed that Hy-Result may help when talking with their doctor about their BP values but only one-third of those have shown the report to their physician. For focus group participants, using Hy-Result should ideally be a physician prescription. They were aware that Hy-Result does not replace clinical judgment and that physicians still have a decisive role in BP management. CONCLUSION: Most of the users described Hy-Result as an easy-to-use and useful tool. Patients are willing to use it on physician request.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood Pressure MonitoringSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207