A Qualitative Study Exploring Women’s Understanding and Experiences of Managing Hypertension in Primary Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Hypertension in women is an important precursor to heart disease, and even when they are on antihypertensive medications, women have higher blood pressure, compared to men. This study aimed to use a theory-informed approach to understand the experiences of women living with hypertension in managing their condition within the primary care setting. Methods We conducted virtual semistructured interviews, in February-June 2023, with Canadian women aged > 40 years who self-identified as experiencing hypertension. The interview guide was developed based on the Common-Sense Self-Regulation Model to explore the perceptions/experiences of women living with hypertension. Additionally, intersectionality questions were added. A deductive approach using the dimensions of the model was applied, and an inductive approach was used to identify themes within the dimensions. Two patient partners were involved in this study throughout the research. Results The women interviewed had a good understanding of the causes of hypertension, and they strongly emphasized stress-induced causes. Their coping strategies included changing their diet and lifestyle choices, taking medications, measuring their blood pressure at home, and visiting their physician. Strong experiences were shared by the participants—of being dismissed as having "white coat" hypertension or nonadherence to medicines, and ageism. Many felt they had to be "armed with proof " and had to strongly advocate for themselves in order to not be dismissed. Conclusions Women with hypertension expressed feelings of not being taken seriously, and the need to provide evidence to advocate for their management. Hypertension interventions need to be tailored to women and account for their intersectionality experiences.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".