MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393196376 · doi:10.1186/s12875-024-02344-1

The impact of communication training on the clinical care of hypertension in general practice: a cluster randomized controlled trial in China

2024· article· en· W4393196376 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chuan Zou, Lili Deng, Jianzhao Luo, Hua Dai, Yu Zhang, Guo Ru, Xiaolu Luo, Rong Yang, Haiqi Song, John Spicer, Qian Zhao, Xiaoyang Liao

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Primary Care · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChinese Medical Association
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureRandomized controlled trialCommunication skills trainingIntervention (counseling)Physical therapyCluster (spacecraft)Cluster randomised controlled trialInternal medicineCommunication skillsNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is one of the most common chronic diseases with a low control rate globally. The effect of communication skills training contributing to hypertension control remains uncertain. The aim of the present study was to assess the effectiveness of an educational intervention based on the Calgary-Cambridge guide in improving hypertensive management. METHODS: A cluster randomized controlled trial enrolled 27 general practitioners (GPs) and 540 uncontrolled hypertensive patients attending 6 community health centers in Chengdu, China. GPs allocated to the intervention group were trained by an online communication course and two face-to-face workshops based on Calgary-Cambridge guides. The primary outcome was blood pressure (BP) control rates and reductions in systolic and diastolic BP from baseline to 3 months. The secondary outcome was changes in GPs' communication skills after one month, patients' knowledge and satisfaction after 3 months. Bivariate analysis and the regression model assessed whether the health provider training improved outcomes. RESULTS: After the communication training, the BP control rate was significantly higher (57.2% vs. 37.4%, p < 0.001) in the intervention groups. Compared to the control group, there was a significant improvement in GP's communication skills (13.0 vs 17.5, p < 0.001), hypertensive patients' knowledge (18.0 vs 20.0, p < 0.001), and systolic blood pressure (139.1 vs 134.7, p < 0.001) after 3 months of follow-up. Random effects least squares regression models showed significant interactions between the intervention group and time period in the change of GP's communication skills (Parameter Estimated (PE): 0.612, CI:0.310,0.907, p = 0.006), hypertensive patient's knowledge (PE:0.233, CI: 0.098, 0.514, p < 0.001), satisfaction (PE:0.495, CI: 0.116, 0.706, p = 0.004), SBP (PE:-0.803, CI: -1.327, -0.389, p < 0.001) and DBP (PE:-0.918, CI: -1.694, -0.634, p < 0.001), from baseline to follow-up. CONCLUSION: Communication training based on the Calgary-Cambridge guide for GPs has shown to be an efficient way in the short term to improve patient-provider communication skills and hypertension outcomes among patients with uncontrolled BPs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on Chinese Clinical Trials Registry on 2019-04-03. (ChiCTR1900022278).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.224
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Primary CareSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207