MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2102455648 · doi:10.4278/ajhp.25.4.eix

Systems Thinking and Health Promotion

2011· editorial· en· W2102455648 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueAmerican Journal of Health Promotion · 2011
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueHealth Policy Implementation Science
Établissements canadiensVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteVancouver Coastal Health
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHealth promotionSystems thinkingPublic relationsPromotion (chess)Social ecologyConceptual frameworkComplex adaptive systemSociologyPsychologyEngineering ethicsMedicinePolitical scienceNursingSocial sciencePublic healthEcologyEngineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The launch of the American Journal of Health Promotion blessed the field with a broad conceptual framework, now refined to include physical, emotional, social, spiritual, and intellectual dimensions of health. Throughout the years, this framework has become increasingly nuanced as research and practice have woven the rich fabric of what we know as health promotion today. However, although the multidimensionality of health promotion is firmly established, we still have lacked a shared understanding of the realities of multilevel influence and the value in multilevel intervention. The basic concept is well accepted, as illustrated, for example, by the Stokol’ social ecological model or the Bronfenbrenner developmental ecology model. Recently, there has been growing interest in systems thinking as a framework to guide science and strategy for a more comprehensive, integrated way of addressing individual, group, organization, community, and societal factors that influence health behavior. A serious shift to systems thinking for health promotion would require fundamental reworking of our usual ways of thinking, working, and evaluating. In 2001, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) produced a landmark report called Crossing the Quality Chasm, in which it endorsed the idea that health care systems are complex adaptive systems (CAS). As health promotion shifts to greater attention to multilevel influences and systems change strategy, CAS principles must be considered. The IOM report followed an important publication in 1998 and was accompanied by a series of publications in the British Medical Journal, which advocated the same emphasis on adopting the CAS lens to better understand how to improve and transform health systems. The IOM report was very important, as it was the first high-level consensus report that endorsed the CAS lens. What all of these publications emphasized is the dual nature of CAS: that they are at one and the same time complex and unpredictable, yet amenable to guided transformation by applying simple rules, as long as these rules are applied with the requisite flexibility to allow for adaptation processes. Health promotion issues are increasingly described as complex problems, deeply embedded within the fabric of society; consider, for example, obesity and chronic disease. Complex problems require intervention at many different system levels and the engagement of actors and organizations across levels ranging from the home, school, and work environments to communities, regions, and entire countries. This multi-level, multi-actor view is at the heart of systems thinking. Key features of complex systems that need to be taken into account in health promotion intervention and evaluation include the following: they are self-organizing and constantly adapting to change; they are driven by interactions between systems components and governed by feedback; and they are nonlinear and often unpredictable, with changes on one part of the system producing unexpected changes in other parts. As a consequence of these features, they often are program and policy resistant. This is not the way most of us in health promotion think about the needs and design of our interventions. A fundamental mind shift is needed, as well as major investments in theory, research methods, practice, and policy. Areas of particular importance for further development include interorganizational partnerships, networks, leadership, and integrated strategic communications. To summarize, the health promotion field during the past 25 years has developed a mosaic of research results and intervention strategies, richly colored by a broad, integrative view of key dimension of individual health. What is most needed now is a complementary view of how best to foster and support systems thinking for a more comprehensive, integrated, and dynamic framework for population approaches to health for all.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,038
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,047
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0380,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,467
Tête enseignante GPT0,632
Écart entre enseignants0,165 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle