Nurse-Led Strategies for Lifestyle Modification to Control Hypertension in Older Adults: A Scoping Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High blood pressure in older adults poses significant risks, including cardiovascular disease, stroke, and renal failure; yet, its management is often overlooked. Nurse-led personalised interventions provide essential guidance, helping patients adhere to treatment plans and adopt lifestyle changes, improving outcomes and quality of life. A scoping review of the literature was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Six electronic databases were searched systematically (CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus). Five research studies were included in this review, from five countries (India, Korea, China, Turkey and Thailand). Primary data were synthesised using descriptive and thematic analysis methodology. The five main themes from this review relate to nurse-led empowerment strategies for hypertension management, variability in blood pressure outcomes, the importance of tailored education and counselling, the role of regular follow-ups and support, and environmental support. Overall, nurse-led personalised interventions improve blood pressure management and patient engagement in older adults, highlighting the need for research into their long-term effectiveness and broader applicability.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it