Acceptance of a Connected Blood Pressure Monitor in the Diagnosis of Hypertension in Rural Areas: An Exploratory Study in France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Home medical devices are increasingly proving their usefulness to the general public, particularly in medical deserts such as rural areas and also in the diagnosis of hypertension (e.g., telemedicine practice requesting self-measurement of blood pressure), nevertheless, this product is not always well received by the population. The objective of this study is to analyze the acceptance of a connected blood pressure monitor in order to understand the factors that will impact its integration in the activity of its appropriation. Twenty patients living in rural areas awaiting diagnosis of hypertension responded to the UTAUT questionnaire after performing self-monitoring of blood pressure for 3 consecutive days. Our results suggest that the intentions of use are related to the 3 main dimensions of the UTAUT, i.e. expected performance (or perceived usefulness), effort expectancy (or perceived ease-of-use), social influence. Effort Expectancy is also strongly correlated to the attitude toward the device. Nevertheless, age, gender, technophilia, self-efficacy and anxiety are not correlated with usage intentions. These results suggest that the intention to use the blood pressure monitor that may impact actual use is determined more by its usefulness (functions, etc.) and ease of use than by socio-demographic characteristics. This is particularly encouraging insofar as these medical devices are a priori accepted by a population with variable characteristics (age, etc.) providing that they are properly designed to be perceived as useful and usable.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".