MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2140289294 · doi:10.1177/1757975911412664

Health promotion, power and political science

2011· editorial· en· W2140289294 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Valéry Ridde, Patrick Cloos

Notice bibliographique

RevueGlobal Health Promotion · 2011
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Établissements canadiensMontfort Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHealth promotionPoliticsPower (physics)Political sciencePublic healthPromotion (chess)Population healthHealth policyPublic relationsSociologyHealth careMedicineLawNursing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

‘The people are the only power’: such are the words heard on the radio from a demonstrator in Egypt on February 11, day of Hosni Moubarak’s departure. The distribution of power and wealth is central to the recently intensified rebellions in countries of the ‘Arab world’ (1). In his forum, Roy (1) describes the population responsible for these popular upheavals as a generation which ‘lives in social displacement’, a situation deleterious for those who are affected by it. And yet, health promotion aims to reduce social inequalities in health (2) which, as Marmot reminds us (3), are an ‘eminently political problem’. The link between health promotion and power seems evident. Consequently, we believe it important for us to use the opportunity offered by these events to reflect on this link and the interest the health promotion field has in studying the relationship between health promotion and the power held by concerned stakeholders, such as states and their institutions, civil society and social groups. What can we say about this relationship, how do health promotion actors position themselves when faced with the relations of power, and more generally, how is power, largely studied in political sciences, defined in this field? Health promotion and political science are two disciplines that remain too distant. A review of health promotion articles published between 1986 and 2006 around the study of public policies shows that only 17% refer to a political science theoretical framework (4). Another review of published articles on the implementation of public policies between 1933 and 2003 shows that only 15% concern health policies, with regional coverage including only 7% for Asia and the Middle East and 4% for Africa (5). As many media have highlighted, the ‘corrupted dictatorships’ (a term used by Roy [1]) and notably those of Tunisia and Egypt, maintain close economic, financial, military and even private links with certain governments of countries said to be occidental and democratic. This questions the universality of values preached by these same countries, such as democracy, human rights and social justice. What is the position of health promotion actors with regard to this modern state paradox, as De Boeck (6) has already implied: promoting the universality of rights while generating differences? The political dimension of health promotion and the reconstruction of health systems have already been suggested in the case of Iraq (7). This political dimension can be seen as an act aiming to strengthen empowerment, a concept central to the Ottawa Charter’s objectives. If the empowerment issue is not new to health promotion (8,9), the link between health promotion and political science – an important discipline in the understanding of the notion of power and explaining changes (10) – remains fine. And yet, if the implementation of public policies is a pillar of health promotion, one must understand that ‘it is through exercising power that public policies come to fruition or not’ (11) and that the study of this same power is the cornerstone of ‘any serious analysis of collective action’ (12). The theoretical frameworks and concepts of political science (13) could bear fruit not only in better understanding contemporary changes but also, and above all, in the way in which health promotion strengthens (or not) its actions, allowing the development of more equitable public policies, as the redistribution of resources is integral to the

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.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

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)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies
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 enseignants0,189
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
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 Opus0,037
Tête enseignante GPT0,376
Écart entre enseignants0,339 · 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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations7
Publié2011
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueGlobal Health PromotionMême sujetGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyTravaux en français237 207