Developing a Youth-Led Digital Hypertension Education Intervention for Adults With Hypertension: Qualitative Study on Refinement and Acceptability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypertension affects one-third of adults in the United States and is the leading risk factor for death. Underserved populations are seen disproportionately in the emergency department (ED) and tend to have worse blood pressure (BP) control. For adults, a lack of hypertension knowledge is a common barrier to hypertension control, while social support is a strong facilitator, and providing information that is culturally sensitive and relevant is especially important in this context. The youth experience increased confidence when given the responsibility to provide health education and care navigation to others. As such, we planned a randomized controlled trial (RCT) for the effectiveness of a digital youth-led hypertension education intervention for adult patients in the ED with hypertension, focusing on change in BP and hypertension knowledge. OBJECTIVE: In preparation for an RCT, we conducted a formative study to determine acceptable and easily comprehensible ways to present hypertension information to adults with hypertension and optimal ways to engage youth to support adults on how to achieve better hypertension control. METHODS: After creating an intervention prototype with 6 weekly self-guided hypertension online modules, we recruited 12 youth (adolescents, aged 15-18 years) for 3 focus groups and 10 adult ED patients with hypertension for individual online interviews to garner feedback on the prototype. After completing a brief questionnaire, participants were asked about experiences with hypertension, preferences for a hypertension education intervention, and acceptability, feasibility, obstacles, and solutions for intervention implementation with youth and adults. The moderator described and showed participants the prototyped intervention process and materials and asked for feedback. Questionnaire data were descriptively summarized, and qualitative data were analyzed using the template organizing style of analysis by 3 study team members. RESULTS: Participants showed great interest in the intervention prototype, thought their peers would find it acceptable, and appreciated its involvement of youth. Youth with family members with hypertension reported that their family members need more support for their hypertension. Youth suggested adding more nutrition education activities to the intervention, such as a sodium tracker and examples of high-sodium foods. Adults discussed the need for a hypertension support intervention for themselves and the expected benefits to youth. They mentioned the overwhelming amount of hypertension information available and appreciated the intervention's concise content presentation. They suggested adding more mental health and smoking cessation resources, information about specific hypertension medications, and adding active links for health care information. CONCLUSIONS: Based on focus groups and interviews with participants, a youth-led digital hypertension intervention is an acceptable strategy to engage both adults with hypertension and youth. Incorporating participant suggestions into the intervention may improve its clarity, engagement, and impact when used in a subsequent RCT.
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 | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".