The cascade of care in managing hypertension in the Arab world: a systematic assessment of the evidence on awareness, treatment and control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a leading risk factor for mortality and morbidity globally and in the Arab world. We summarize the evidence on awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension, to assess the extent of gaps in the hypertension continuum of care. We also assess the influence of gender and other social determinants at each level of the cascade of care. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and SSCI databases for studies published between 2000 and 2017, reporting the rates of awareness, treatment or control of hypertension and/or their determinants in the Arab region. We included sources on both general populations and on clinical populations. The review process was based on the PRISMA guidelines. We present rates on the three stages of the care cascade corresponding to (1) awareness (2) treatment and (3) control of blood pressure, and estimated the losses that occur when moving from one stage to another. We also take stock of the evidence on social determinants and assess the statistical significance of gender differences in awareness, treatment and control. RESULTS: Data from 73 articles were included. Substantial proportions of hypertensives were lost at each step of the hypertension care continuum, with more missed opportunities for care resulting from lack of awareness of hypertension and from uncontrolled blood pressure. More than 40% and 19% of all hypertensive individuals were found to be unaware and to have uncontrolled blood pressure, respectively, but among individuals diagnosed with hypertension, less than 21% were untreated. Awareness rates were higher among women than men but this advantage was not consistently translated into better blood pressure control rates among women. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of the cascade of care indicates that barriers to proper diagnosis and adequate control are greater than barriers to delivery of treatment, and discusses potential factors that may contribute to the gaps in delivery.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".