MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410781088 · doi:10.5334/gh.1428

Candidate Interventions for Integrating Hypertension and Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Care in Primary Health Settings: HEARTS 2.0 Phase 1

2025· article· en· W4410781088 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Heart · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoNOSM UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionIntensive care medicineKidney diseaseHealth careDiabetes mellitusFamily medicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: HEARTS in the Americas is the regional adaptation of the WHO Global HEARTS Initiative, aimed at helping countries enhance hypertension and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk management in primary care settings. Its core implementation tool, the HEARTS Clinical Pathway, has been adopted by 28 countries. To improve the care of hypertension, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease (CKD), HEARTS 2.0 was developed as a three-phase process to integrate evidence-based interventions into a unified care pathway, ensuring consistency across fragmented guidelines. This paper focuses on Phase 1, highlighting targeted interventions to improve and update the HEARTS Clinical Pathway. Methods: First, the coordinating group defined the project's scope, objectives, principles, methodological framework, and tools. Second, international experts from different disciplines proposed interventions to enhance the HEARTS Clinical Pathway. Third, the coordinating group harmonized these proposals into unique interventions. Fourth, experts appraised the appropriateness of the proposed interventions on a 1-to-9 scale using the adapted RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Finally, interventions with a median score above 6 were deemed appropriate and selected as candidates to enhance the HEARTS Clinical Pathway. Results: Building on the existing HEARTS Clinical Pathway, 45 unique interventions were selected, including community-based screening, early detection and management of risk factors, lower blood pressure thresholds for diagnosing hypertension in high-CVD-risk patients, reinforcement of single-pill combination therapy, inclusion of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors for patients with diabetes, CKD, or heart failure, expanded roles for non-physician health workers in team-based care, and strengthened clinical documentation, monitoring, and evaluation. Conclusion: HEARTS 2.0 Phase 1 identifies key interventions to integrate and improve hypertension and cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic care within primary care, enabling their seamless incorporation into a unified and effective clinical pathway. This process will inform an update to the HEARTS Clinical Pathway, optimizing resources, reducing care fragmentation, improving care delivery, and advancing health equity, thereby supporting global efforts to combat the leading causes of death and disability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it