Multimorbidity and Blood Pressure Control in Patients Attending Primary Care in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been conflicting evidence on the association between multimorbidity and blood pressure (BP) control. This study aimed to investigate this associations in people with hypertension attending primary care in Canada, and to assess whether individual long-term conditions are associated with BP control. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study in people with hypertension attending primary care in Toronto between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2019. Uncontrolled BP was defined as systolic BP ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic BP ≥ 90 mmHg. A list of 11 a priori selected chronic conditions was used to define multimorbidity. Multimorbidity was defined as having ≥1 long-term condition in addition to hypertension. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between multimorbidity (or individual long-term conditions) with uncontrolled BP. RESULTS: A total of 67 385 patients with hypertension were included. They had a mean age of 70, 53.1% were female, 80.6% had multimorbidity, and 35.7% had uncontrolled BP. Patients with multimorbidity had lower odds of uncontrolled BP than those without multimorbidity (adjusted OR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.68-0.76). Among the long-term conditions, diabetes (aOR = 0.73, 95%CI 0.70-0.77), heart failure (aOR = 0.81, 95%CI 0.73-0.91), ischemic heart disease (aOR = 0.74, 95%CI 0.69-0.79), schizophrenia (aOR = 0.79, 95%CI 0.65-0.97), depression/anxiety (aOR = 0.91, 95%CI 0.86-0.95), dementia (aOR = 0.87, 95%CI 0.80-0.95), and osteoarthritis (aOR = 0.89, 95%CI 0.85-0.93) were associated with a lower likelihood of uncontrolled BP. CONCLUSION: We found that multimorbidity was associated with better BP control. Several conditions were associated with better control, including diabetes, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, schizophrenia, depression/anxiety, dementia, and osteoarthritis.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".