The Effects of Lifestyle Intervention Using the Modified Beliefs, Attitude, Subjective Norms, Enabling Factors Model in Hypertension Management: Quasi-Experimental Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a serious health issue and a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease and stroke. Although various health education models have been used to improve lifestyle in patients with hypertension, the findings have been inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the effects of a lifestyle intervention program using a modified Beliefs, Attitude, Subjective Norms, Enabling Factors (BASNEF) model among nonadherent participants with hypertension in managing elevated blood pressure (BP) levels. METHODS: This study reports a quantitative quasi-experimental research work, particularly using a repeated-measures design of the within-subjects approach on the 50 nonadherent patients who received a diagnosis of essential hypertension in Cebu, Philippines. The research participants received 5 sessions of training based on a modified BASNEF model. An adherence instrument was used as an evaluation platform. The first phase gathers participants' relevant profiles and background, and the final phase gathers participants' systolic BP, diastolic BP, heart rate, and adherence scores. RESULTS: The results indicate that the phase 1 mean systolic readings (146.50, SD 19.59) differ significantly from the phase 4 mean systolic readings (134.92, SD 15.24). They also suggest that the lifestyle intervention based on session III or phase IV behavioral intention in the BASNEF model microgroup sessions positively affects BP readings among the research participants. CONCLUSIONS: This study has established that the BASNEF model approach can be a good BP management technique.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".