Abstract TAC244: Identifying Gaps in Hypertension Training Across Canadian Health Professions: A National Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Hypertension is the most prevalent cardiovascular risk factor in Canada and a major driver of morbidity. Despite its importance, no national standard exists for how hypertension is taught across professions. The extent and consistency of hypertension education in Canadian healthcare training programs remain unclear. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that hypertension education across Canadian health professions is variable, with gaps in practical skills, guideline adherence, and interprofessional care. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional national survey (March–April 2025), distributed via trainee representatives of healthcare associations. All accredited Canadian MD, NP, PharmD, RN/RPN, and family medicine programs were eligible. The 22-item questionnaire assessed seven domains, including curriculum structure, hypertension pathophysiology, BP measurement, risk assessment, and team-based care. Responses were selected from predefined options and mapped post hoc to a 4-point scale, with scores ≥3 considered adequate. The primary outcome was the proportion of programs meeting this threshold in each domain. Items also asked students to list secondary hypertension causes, treatment options, and BP measurement steps. Programs reported total instruction hours. Data were analyzed descriptively, stratified by profession, and grouped by institution, within an implementation science lens. Ethics approval was obtained from the University of Toronto REB (#47478). Results: Sixty-three programs responded (60% response rate): 10 MD, 10 PharmD, 10 family medicine, 32 RN/RPN, and one NP. Most programs adequately covered hypertension pathophysiology and cardiovascular risk assessment but multidisciplinary care and hands-on skills were inconsistently addressed. Only 30% reported adequate training in guideline-based BP measurement. PharmD, MD, and RN students correctly identified a mean of 4.2, 3.75, and 3.2 of six BP measurement steps, respectively. Fewer than 30% of programs met benchmarks for use of digital tools or adherence counseling. Only 30% of MD programs reported adequate team-based care training, compared to 100% of RPN/LPN and 60% of RN and PharmD programs. Instructional hours ranged from 66.8 in MD to 9.5 in RPN/LPN programs. Conclusions: Hypertension education across Canadian healthcare training programs is variable, with notable gaps in hands-on skills. These findings establish a baseline to guide standardized interprofessional hypertension training development.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".