South Asians’ experience of managing hypertension: a grounded theory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kathryn M King-Shier,1,2 Kirnvir K Dhaliwal,1 Roshani Puri,1 Pamela LeBlanc,1 Jasmine Johal3 1Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada; 2Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada; 3Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada Objective: We examined the process that South Asians undergo when managing their hypertension (HTN). Method: Using grounded theory methods, 27 community-dwelling English-, Punjabi-, or Hindi-speaking South Asian participants (12 men and 15 women), who self-identified as having HTN were interviewed. Transcripts were analyzed using constant comparison. Results: The core category was “fitting it in”. First, the participants assessed their diagnosis and treatment primarily in the context of their current family/social environment. Participants who paid attention to their diagnosis either fully or partly embraced activities and attitudes associated with successful management of hypertension. However, those who did not attend to their diagnosis, identified other familial/social factors, stress of immigration, and not having symptoms of their disease as barriers. The longer the time since diagnosis of HTN, the more participants came to appropriately manage their HTN. Conclusion: Healthcare providers may use this information to enhance their cultural understanding of how and why South Asians manage their HTN. Keywords: South Asian, hypertension, grounded theory, health management
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 teacher head, 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".