SAPC Annual Conference 2011 Abstracts, 6-8 July 2011, University of Bristol, UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a major cause of death and disability.Effective population-based strategies to reduce CVD morbidity and mortality are needed.Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of a pharmacy-based Cardiovascular Health Awareness Program (CHAP) on cardiovascular disease morbidity. Design: Cluster randomized trial.Setting: Thirty-nine mid-sized communities in Ontario, Canada.Participants: Community-dwelling residents 65 years of age or older, family physicians, pharmacists, volunteers, community nurses and local lead organizations.Intervention: Residents 65 years of age or older were invited to attend volunteer-run cardiovascular risk assessment and education sessions held in community-based pharmacies over a 10-week period.Automated blood pressure readings and self-reported risk factor data were collected and shared with session participants and their family physicians and pharmacists.Main Outcome Measure: A composite of hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction, stroke and congestive heart failure among all community residents aged 65 years and older. ResultsAll 20 intervention communities successfully implemented CHAP.A total of 1 265 3-hour long sessions were held in 90% (129/145) of pharmacies during the 10-week program.A total of 27 358 CVD assessments were performed on 15 889 unique participants with the assistance of 577 peer-volunteers.Adjusting for hospital admission rates in the year prior to intervention, CHAP was associated with a 9% relative reduction in our composite endpoint (rate ratio 0•91 [95% CI 0•86-0•97], p=0•002).There were statistically significant reductions favouring the intervention communities in hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction (rate ratio 0•87 [95% CI 0•79 -0•97], p=0•008) and congestive heart failure (rate ratio 0•90 [95% CI 0•81 -0•99], p=0•029), but not for stroke (rate ratio 0•99 [95% CI 0•88 -1•12], p=0•89) (table 3).Conclusions A collaborative, multipronged community-based health promotion and prevention program targeted at older adults can reduce cardiovascular morbidity at the population level.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.725 | 0.393 |
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".