MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Population Preferences for Primary Care Models for Hypertension in Karnataka, India

2023· article· en· W4324129817 on OpenAlexaff
Hannah H. Leslie, Giridhara R. Babu, Nolita Dolcy Saldanha, Anne‐Marie Turcotte‐Tremblay, Neena Kapoor, Suresh S Shapeti, Dorairaj Prabhakaran, Margaret E. Kruk

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthHarvard UniversityBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsMedicinePopulationFamily medicineCourtesyBlood pressurePreferenceHealth careCross-sectional studyDemographyEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Hypertension contributes to more than 1.6 million deaths annually in India, with many individuals being unaware they have the condition or receiving inadequate treatment. Policy initiatives to strengthen disease detection and management through primary care services in India are not currently informed by population preferences. Objective: To quantify population preferences for attributes of public primary care services for hypertension. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study involved administration of a household survey to a population-based sample of adults with hypertension in the Bengaluru Nagara district (Bengaluru City; urban setting) and the Kolar district (rural setting) in the state of Karnataka, India, from June 22 to July 27, 2021. A discrete choice experiment was designed in which participants selected preferred primary care clinic attributes from hypothetical alternatives. Eligible participants were 30 years or older with a previous diagnosis of hypertension or with measured diastolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or higher or systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or higher. A total of 1422 of 1927 individuals (73.8%) consented to receive initial screening, and 1150 (80.9%) were eligible for participation, with 1085 (94.3%) of those eligible completing the survey. Main Outcomes and Measures: Relative preference for health care service attributes and preference class derived from respondents selecting a preferred clinic scenario from 8 sets of hypothetical comparisons based on wait time, staff courtesy, clinician type, carefulness of clinical assessment, and availability of free medication. Results: Among 1085 adult respondents with hypertension, the mean (SD) age was 54.4 (11.2) years; 573 participants (52.8%) identified as female, and 918 (84.6%) had a previous diagnosis of hypertension. Overall preferences were for careful clinical assessment and consistent availability of free medication; 3 of 5 latent classes prioritized 1 or both of these attributes, accounting for 85.1% of all respondents. However, the largest class (52.4% of respondents) had weak preferences distributed across all attributes (largest relative utility for careful clinical assessment: β = 0.13; 95% CI, 0.06-0.20; 36.4% preference share). Two small classes had strong preferences; 1 class (5.4% of respondents) prioritized shorter wait time (85.1% preference share; utility, β = -3.04; 95% CI, -4.94 to -1.14); the posterior probability of membership in this class was higher among urban vs rural respondents (mean [SD], 0.09 [0.26] vs 0.02 [0.13]). The other class (9.5% of respondents) prioritized seeing a physician (the term doctor was used in the survey) rather than a nurse (66.2% preference share; utility, β = 4.01; 95% CI, 2.76-5.25); the posterior probability of membership in this class was greater among rural vs urban respondents (mean [SD], 0.17 [0.35] vs 0.02 [0.10]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, stated population preferences suggested that consistent medication availability and quality of clinical assessment should be prioritized in primary care services in Karnataka, India. The heterogeneity observed in population preferences supports considering additional models of care, such as fast-track medication dispensing to reduce wait times in urban settings and physician-led services in rural areas.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207