Home Blood Pressure Measurements Are Not Performed According to Guidelines and Standardized Education Is Urgently Needed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient education is needed to perform home blood pressure measurement (HBPM) according to blood pressure (BP) guidelines. It is not known how BP is measured at home and what education is provided, which was the aim of the study. METHODS: Mixed-methods study among Australian adults who perform HBPM (June to December 2023). Participants completed a 30-item online survey on whether they followed guideline recommendations and the education they received for HBPM. Phone interviews were conducted among a purposive sample to further explore survey topics. RESULTS: Participants (n=350) were middle-aged (58±16 years; 54% women), and most (n=250, 71%) had hypertension. Guideline recommendations for HBPM were not always followed by survey participants. Most participants measured BP seated (n=316, 90%) with the cuff fitted to a bare arm (n=269, 77%). Only 15% measured BP in the morning and evening (n=54) and 26% averaged the BP readings over 7 days (n=90). Interview participants (n=34) described measuring BP at "different times of the day after doing different things." One-third of participants (n=112, 37%) received education for HBPM, which interview participants described as vague verbal instructions from health care practitioners. Participants who received education did not perform high-quality HBPM. Participants who did not receive education mimicked BP measurement methods of health care practitioners, "I do it the way I've seen them do it." CONCLUSIONS: HBPM is not performed according to guideline recommendations, and adults who received ad hoc education did not perform high-quality HBPM. These findings highlight a need for effective education to support HBPM for clinical decision-making.
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 | 0.023 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".