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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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