MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043748126 · doi:10.4102/safp.v62i1.5039

Using community-based participatory research in improving the management of hypertension in communities: A scoping review

2020· review· en· W3043748126 on OpenAlex
Pugie T. Chimberengwa, Mergan Naidoo

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSouth African Family Practice · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOutreachCommunity-based participatory researchPsychological interventionContext (archaeology)StakeholderParticipatory action researchMEDLINEHealth careNursingPublic relationsEconomic growthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hypertension (HT) is a key contributor to cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). The improved management of HT in the community and primary care settings should be a priority for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Improving the prevention and management of HT in primary care settings should also be a priority for developing countries. There is a need for more studies using community-based approaches that show the impact of these programmes on HT outcomes, which may motivate policymakers to invest in such approaches. The ward-based outreach team or village healthcare worker models were meant to provide such approaches, but many of these have become lower levels of curative care. We conducted a scoping review to examine how community-based participatory research (CBPR) was being used to improve HT management. METHODS: Several electronic databases were searched, namely PubMed, MEDLINE, Google Scholar and Web of Science, generating 798 references. The publications were screened through several rounds. Data were extracted and imported into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, numerically summarised and qualitatively analysed. RESULTS: Nine articles were included. These publications originated from the United States, Colombia, Canada, China, South Africa and Zimbabwe. Mixed methods, qualitative, randomised control trials and quasi-experimental studies were used to implement CBPR in the studies included. All the studies addressed complex health problems and inequities among the minorities utilising multiple stakeholder participation. Academic-community coalitions were formed, which enabled engagement and sharing of power equitably. As a result, there was acceptability and sustainability of interventions. CONCLUSION: A CBPR framework can be used to define the context, group dynamics, implementation and outcomes of HT. It is possible to apply CBPR in HT management to appropriately address health disparities while emphasising a community-driven approach. To achieve this, tailored health education platforms should be developed and implemented.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.004
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 head0.696
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.209 · 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