MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4394763297 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081937

Undiagnosed and uncontrolled hypertension in rural African adults: a scoping review protocol of primary health care interventions

2024· review· en· W4394763297 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra Peniston, Divya Sivaramakrishnan, Aisha Holloway

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)ChecklistSystematic reviewHealth careRural areaMEDLINEFamily medicineNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Non-communicable diseases cause 74% of global deaths, with cardiovascular diseases as the major contributor. Hypertension, a primary risk factor for cardiovascular disease, is highly prevalent in Africa. Diagnosis, treatment and control rates are notably limited in rural areas. This limitation results in increased risks of premature mortality and complications such as stroke due to socioeconomic, cultural and geographical challenges. Progress in African countries enhancing hypertension services through primary health care interventions exists. However, a comprehensive review of all primary health care interventions addressing undiagnosed and uncontrolled hypertension in rural African settings is lacking. This scoping review aims to categorise primary health care interventions targeting undiagnosed and uncontrolled hypertension in rural African adults. Intervention components will be mapped to the four stages outlined in the hypertension care cascade to develop a pilot intervention logic model for rural African adults with hypertension. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review protocol will adhere to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Studies considered for inclusion will include any intervention delivered by any healthcare provider in a rural African primary care setting targeting any stage of hypertension care. Eight databases will be searched without date restrictions, supplemented by grey literature and reference list searches. A two-stage screening process (title/abstract and full text) will determine evidence source eligibility. All eligible sources of evidence will be extracted, charted and evaluated using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist. A pilot logic model categorising and mapping interventions to the four stages of the hypertension care cascade will be visually presented and analysed using narrative synthesis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No primary data will be collected; therefore, ethics approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated to local health authorities in Ghana and other African Regions and through national and international conferences and publications in peer-reviewed journals.

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)0.122
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.099
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1220.099
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.015
Bibliometrics0.0160.014
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.011
Open science0.0070.008
Research integrity0.0100.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0880.018

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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 venueBMJ Open→Same topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies→French-language works237,207→