Implementation of a home blood pressure monitoring program for the management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, an observational study in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: COVID-19 pandemic has influenced health care delivery. We conducted an observational study to understand how obstetric medicine (ObM) physicians utilized home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) to manage hypertension in pregnancy. Methods: Pregnant participants with risk factors or diagnosis of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) were enrolled, May 2020-December 2021, and provided with validated home blood pressure (BP) monitor. ObM physicians completed questionnaires to elicit how home BP readings were interpreted to manage HDP. Results: We enrolled 103 people: 44 antepartum patients (33.5 ± 5 years, gestational age of 24 ± 5 weeks); 59 postpartum patients (35 ± 6 years, enrolled 6 ± 4 days post-partum). ObM physicians used range of home BP readings (70%) for management of HDP. Conclusions: HBPM to manage HDP is acceptable and can be used to manage hypertension during pregnancy. Further studies are needed to assess the generalizability of our findings and the safety of HBPM reliance alone in management of HDP.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".