Treatment adherence and frailty syndrome in hypertensive older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the association between adherence to antihypertensive treatment and frailty syndrome in hypertensive older adults. METHOD: A descriptive, cross-sectional study with a quantitative approach with older adults. The data collection took place between November 2017 and March 2018, evaluating sociodemographic information, adherence to antihypertensive treatment, lifestyle and frailty through the Edmonton Frail Scale. The Kruskal-Wallis test and the Chi-squared test were used for data analysis, considering a 95% confidence interval and a significance level of p<0.05. RESULTS: There were 193 older adults who participated in the study. The average age was 80.94 (sd ± 7.17) years, with a predominance of females (72%) and widows (43.5%). The factors which were associated with adherence to treatment were diastolic blood pressure, education and the time that the older adult had smoked (p<0.05). Frailty was not associated with treatment adherence levels (p=0.095). CONCLUSION: There was no association between frailty scores and control of arterial hypertension; however, adequate monitoring and nursing care are essential in assessing adherence to treatment in order to reduce the aggravations of the disease and frailty syndrome development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".