Evaluation of knowledge and practices of hypertensive patients regarding home blood pressure monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background.Home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) is a crucial part of managing and preventing complications of hypertension.Objectives.The study's objective was to evaluate adult hypertension patients' knowledge of and attitudes towards home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM).However, it is uncertain whether individuals with hypertension in Saudi Arabia monitor their blood pressure at home.Material and methods.In a cross-sectional survey, a total of 830 cases, ranging from 18 years of age and above of both genders, were selected.Patients with hypertension for more than six months were included.Data was collected by filling out the designed questionnaire.Results.Knowledge related to blood pressure (BP) measurements was moderate to high, whereas the practices of home blood pressure monitoring were not satisfactory.Our results imply that patients are informed about hypertension (HTN) in general but are less aware of specific factors associated with it, specifically their own degree of BP control.There was no statistically significant association between the age of the participants, gender, educational level, occupation, residency region and the duration of HTN compared with knowledge and level of practice; however, it was observed that participants who had sufficient average monthly income, positive family history of hypertension and patients with chronic disease(s) had significantly better knowledge and good practices.Conclusions.The knowledge of hypertensive patients related to HBPM was found to be moderate, while their practices were poor.Hypertensive patients > 60 years of age showed better practices.Both knowledge and practices were comparatively better in patients who were married, those who had a sufficient monthly income, those with a family history of HTN and those who had associated comorbidities.
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 | 0.013 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".