MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2148041451 · doi:10.1177/1466424006063182

A review of major influences on current public health policy in developed countries in the second half of the 20th century

2006· review· en· W2148041451 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Linda Irvine, Lawrie Elliott, Hilary Wallace, Iain K. Crombie

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health · 2006
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCurrent (fluid)Political sciencePublic healthPublic health policyDevelopment economicsHealth policyEconomicsMedicineEngineeringElectrical engineeringNursing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Public health policy underwent substantial transformation during the latter half of the 20th century. The landmark statement was the 1948 World Health Organization (WHO) constitution, which identified good health as a fundamental right and gave the responsibility to governments to achieve it for all their people. However, following World War II, developed countries made substantial investment in health care with less attention paid to public health. The importance of public health was slowly recognised over the period from 1970 to 2000 with the publication of several reports from different organisations. The first authoritative policy statement that the important determinants of health lay outside health care was in the Lalonde Report from Canada. These ideas were subsequently expressed in the WHO Alma-Ata declaration and were emphasised a year later by the US Surgeon General. The idea of setting goals for health improvement also began in the 1970s. The Lalonde Report and the United Kingdom Black Report recommended that targets be used, but the first explicitly stated health targets were set by the US in 1979. WHO also identified the need for such targets at this time, but did not introduce them until 1984. Since then health targets have become a central feature of public health policy in developed countries. The Ottawa Conference on Health Promotion in 1986 championed the view that health promotion was central to achieving health goals internationally. It helped clarify the types of actions needed: that individuals need to be provided with the supportive environment and economic resources to be able to lead healthy lives. In a further development, the Healthy Cities Project was launched with the specific aim of involving political decision-makers in building a strong lobby for public health at the local level. The Healthy Cities Project illustrates how to provide means and opportunity for interventions to be implemented in communities. Concerns with inequalities in health were emphasised in the WHO declaration of Alma-Ata, and were the focus of the United Kingdom Black Report. The Jakarta Conference on Health Promotion in 1997 urged international action on poverty, as it is the major threat to health. International acceptance of the need to tackle inequalities took longer than the acceptance of health targets, but it is now an important feature of public health policy. The advent of the 21st century marked the coming of age of public health. The renewed version of 'Health for All', 'Health for All in the 21st Century', emphasised the one constant goal of WHO that all individuals should achieve their full health potential. Public health is now regarded internationally as being a priority with this WHO goal being adopted as the overarching goal of policy. The challenges it faces in tackling problems such as obesity, inequalities in health, smoking, alcohol and substance abuse are great and will require policies which tackle the economic, social and environmental determinants of health.

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)0,031
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,620
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,997

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0310,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0020,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
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 Opus0,104
Tête enseignante GPT0,397
Écart entre enseignants0,293 · 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
GenreSynthèse

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

En bref

Citations36
Publié2006
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of HealthMême sujetGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyTravaux en français237 207