HEARTS in the Americas: Targeting Health System Change to Improve Population Hypertension Control
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: HEARTS in the Americas is the regional adaptation of Global Hearts, the World Health Organization initiative for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention and control. Its overarching goal is to drive health services to change managerial and clinical practice in primary care settings to improve hypertension control and CVD risk management. This review describes the HEARTS in the Americas initiative. First, the regional epidemiological situation of CVD mortality and population hypertension control trends are summarized; then the rationale for its main intervention components: the primary care-oriented management system and the HEARTS Clinical Pathway are described. Finally, the key factors for accelerating the expansion of HEARTS are examined: medicines, team-based care, and a system for monitoring and evaluation. RECENT FINDINGS: Thus far, 33 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have committed to integrating this program across their primary healthcare network by 2025. The increase in hypertension coverage and control in primary health care settings compared with the traditional model is promising and confirms that the interventions under the HEARTS umbrella are feasible and acceptable to communities, patients, providers, decision-makers, and funders. This review highlights some cases of successful implementation. Scaling up effective treatment for hypertension and optimization of CVD risk management is a pragmatic way to accelerate the reduction of CVD mortality while strengthening primary healthcare systems to respond effectively, with quality, and equitably, to the challenge of non-communicable diseases, not only in low-middle income countries but in all communities globally.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it