The effectiveness of person‐centred quality improvement strategies on the management and control of hypertension in primary care: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of person‐centred quality improvement strategies on the management and control of adults with hypertension in primary care. Methods A systematic review and meta‐analysis was conducted using the Medline, Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and APA PsycINFO databases (January 1980 to March 2020). Randomized controlled trials that evaluated person‐centred quality improvement strategies for the management and control of essential hypertension among adults ( 18 years) in primary care were included. Random effects models were used to estimate weighted mean differences (WMD) for the change in systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP, DBP) from baseline; risk ratios (RR) were calculated for the proportion of participants achieving target blood pressures, for each quality improvement strategy assessed. A qualitative review of the implementation details of the interventions was conducted to identify common components of interventions that were effective in improving blood pressure outcomes. Results Eight studies were included (total of 5654 patients). Findings favour use of person‐centred quality improvement interventions over usual care (RR = 1.23 [95% CI: 1.01; 1.48]) for improving blood pressure outcomes. Self‐management (RR = 1.43 [95% CI: 1.23; 1.65]) had the greatest effects on blood pressure targets. Clinician education resulted in the greatest SBP reduction (WMD:6.09 mmHg [95% CI: 2.32; 9.85]), while patient education and patient reminder systems (both WMD:4.86 mmHg [95% CI: 0.88; 8.83]) saw the most improvements in DBP. While interventions varied in their strategy implementation, common features of effective interventions included tailored communication with patients, use of health information technology, and multidisciplinary collaboration. Conclusion Person‐centred quality improvement strategies were effective in improving blood pressure outcomes. Further research is needed regarding the context of implementing interventions to provide greater insight into the components of a person‐centred quality improvement intervention most effective in improving hypertension outcomes.
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 | 0.025 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.044 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".