Study To Assess Knowledge And Attitude Regarding Hypertension, Compliance To Treatment And Control Measures Adopted By Hypertensive Clients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertension is s silent killer increasing day by day. The objective of the study was to assess the Knowledge and attitude, compliance to treatment and control measures of hypertensive clients regarding hypertension.200 clients suffering from hypertension, were selected through purposive sampling technique. In view of the nature of the problem and to accomplish the objectives of the study, structured knowledge questionnaire and attitude scale and compliance scale and observational checklist was prepared and Reliability of the tools was tested by Kr20 for knowledge questionnaire, cronbach’s alpha for attitude scale and compliance to treatment scale and inter-rated reliability for control measures was used, which was 0.76 for knowledge, 0.78 for attitude and 0.86 for compliance and 0.7 for control measures respectively. From the study findings, it was found that the hypertensive clients had fair Knowledge regarding hypertension. The hypertensive clients had favorable attitude regarding prevention and control of hypertension. The hypertensive clients have Good compliance to treatment regarding hypertension. The hypertensive clients are having fair control of hypertension. The findings suggest that hypertensive clients are having fair knowledge, favorable attitude regarding hypertension, good compliance but they are having fair control over hypertension.
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".