SELF PERCEPTION AND SELF CARE IN TREATMENT OF ARTERIAL HYPERTENSION: SCOPING REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research question: What is the panorama of the use of self-care and self-perception in the treatment of arterial hypertension? Is physical therapy incluid in this process? Objective: identify and map the caracteristics of the approach to the use of self-perception and self-care in the treatment of arterial hypertension and if there is the participation of physical therapy in this process. Search strategy: P (population): hypertensive individuals C (concept): self care and self perception C (context): use of self-care and self-perception in the treatment of hypertensive individuals Data bases: PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, CAPES Theses and Dissertations Portal, DART-Europe E-Theses Portal, Electronic Theses Online Service (EThOS), Scientific Open Access Repository of Portugal (RCAAP), Trove, National ETD Portal, Theses Canada. Elegibility criteria: Texts available in full, in Portuguese, Spanish and English, research that presented the use or evaluation of self-care and self-perception in the treatment of patients with arterial hypertension. Mesh Terms: self-care, self care, care, Self, self-perception, self perception, Self-Perceptions, Perception, Self, Perceptions, Self, Self Perceptions, self concept, hypertension, high blood pressure, blood pressure, high, blood pressures, High, high blood pressures.
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 | 0.012 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".