KNOWLEDGE, PERCEPTION, AND PRACTICE OF QUEBEC HEALTH PROFESSIONALS REGARDING AMBULATORY AND CLINIC BLOOD PRESSURE MEASUREMENT METHODS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Hypertension Canada Guidelines recommend using standardized methods of blood pressure measurement (BPM), namely home (HBPM), ambulatory (ABPM), office (OBPM), and automated (AOBP) for hypertension management. Health professionals (HP), namely nurses, physicians, and pharmacists, routinely perform BPM, but their knowledge, perception, and practice concerning all methods is understudied, including in Canada, and results show critical gaps with the guidelines. This descriptive study is the first to establish a portrait primary care HP's in Quebec concerning the four BPM methods. Design and method: All licensed primary care HP's in Quebec were targeted. A validated and pretested investigator-initiated BPM questionnaire in English and French was used for data collection. In December 2019, physicians and pharmacists were recruited through their associations’ monthly newsletter, while nurses received a personalized email invitation with a link to a secured platform. UQTR issued the certificate of ethics. Results: A total of 453 nurses, 45 physicians, and 30 pharmacists participated in the study. The median age was 40 ± 11 years for nurses, 50 ± 13 years for physicians, and 42 ± 12 for pharmacists. The overall knowledge and perception scores for BPM methods are presented in Table 1. In practice, physicians frequently use HBPM for diagnostic purposes (73%), treatment (91%), and follow-up (86%), while HBPM was recommended by 47% of nurses and 53% of pharmacists. Overall, ABPM was used less frequently (<50% of the time) by all HP's. In the clinic, the auscultatory method is still used by a significant percentage of nurses (11%), physicians (32%) and pharmacists (7%), while only 25% nurses, 13% physicians and 30% pharmacists use the AOBP method. Conclusions: Overall, knowledge was suboptimal for nurses and somewhat optimal for physicians and pharmacists. Practice was unsatisfactory for all HPs. Training and continuing education should be encouraged and should be renewed with the newest education methods along with practice assessment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".