The Association of Health Literacy with High-Quality Home Blood Pressure Monitoring for Hypertensive Patients in Outpatient Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Worldwide hypertension (HT) guidelines recommend use of home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) in patients with persistent suboptimal blood pressure (BP) readings. It is not clear how patients with limited health literacy could perform HBPM to assist BP control. This study aimed at finding the association between HBPM and patients from lower socioeconomic classes, particularly on the effect of health literacy or educational level. Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed) were searched for primary studies with keywords including educational level, health literacy, numeracy, home blood pressure monitoring, accuracy, and quality. The PRISMA guideline was followed. The quality of the literature was assessed by the Cochrane tool and modified Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale. Nineteen interventional studies and 29 cross‐sectional studies were included. Different populations used different cutoffs to report patients’ educational level, whereas health literacy was rarely measured. Three studies used psychometric validated tools to assess health literacy. The quality of HBPM could be assessed by the completion of the procedures’ checklist or the number of HBPM readings recorded. The association between subjects’ health literacy or educational level and the quality of HBPM was variable. The interventional studies showed that increasing professional‐patient contact time could improve patients’ knowledge, efficacy, and quality of HBPM. Conclusion . Patients’ educational level and literacy were not the limiting factors to acquire high‐quality HBPM. High‐quality HBPM could be achieved by the structured educational intervention. The quality and amount of evidence on this topic are limited. Therefore, further studies are warranted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".