Community Health Workers Equipped with an mHealth Application Can Accurately Diagnose Hypertension in Rural Guatemala
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hypertension is a leading global cause of morbidity and mortality and is increasing in low- and middle-income countries, where unawareness of hypertension is a primary obstacle to management. Community health workers (CHWs) in combination with mobile health (mHealth) tools are increasingly used in LMIC health systems to strengthen primary care infrastructure. In this study, we applied this care model to hypertension in rural Guatemala by comparing the accuracy of CHWs equipped with an mHealth clinical decision support application in diagnosing hypertension to concurrent physician evaluation. Methods: We performed a prospective diagnostic accuracy study in which adults from rural Guatemalan communities were assessed independently by a CHW aided by a mHealth application and a physician. Assessment included medical history; measurement of blood pressure, height and weight; and determination of hypertension status. CHW-physician agreement on hypertension status and past medical history elements was assessed by Kappa analysis and proportional agreement, with a priori thresholds of Kappa = 0.61 and agreement of 90%. Agreement on patient measurements was evaluated using Bland-Altman and regression analyses. Results: Of 359 participants enrolled, 47 (13%) were confirmed to have hypertension and another 11 (3%) had possible hypertension. CHW-physician agreement was high for hypertension diagnosis, with Kappa = 0.8 (95% CI = 0.72, 0.88) and overall agreement 92.8% (95% CI = 90.1%, 95.4%). Bland-Altman analysis showed small biases toward lower systolic blood pressure, higher height, and lower BMI measurements by CHWs. Most patient history characteristics showed moderate to almost perfect (Kappa: 0.41–1) agreement between physicians and CHWs. Conclusions: In this study based in rural Guatemala, CHWs using a mHealth clinical decision support application were found to screen adult patients for hypertension with similar accuracy to a physician. This approach could be adapted to other low-resource settings to reduce the burden of undiagnosed and untreated 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".