Health promotion in Australia: An empirical study into the approaches adopted and evidence used by practitioners in their practice
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Health promotion is commonly defined as “the process of enabling people to increase control over, and to improve, their health”. This definition was originally found in the Ottawa Charter, which was written in 1986 and has been widely considered to be the founding document for health promotion practice. The existing health promotion literature suggests that practitioners have strong commitments to the values and principles presented in the Ottawa Charter and other iconic documents, but their practice contexts may not support the translation and implementation of those values and principles. We currently lack an empirical understanding of how the values and principles underpinning health promotion are conceptualised by practitioners and translated into practice. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted with health promotion practitioners in New South Wales, Australia. 58 semi-structured interviews and 250 hours of participant and non-participant observation were conducted with 54 practitioners. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and field notes were written during the observations; these were analysed thematically. Results: Health promotion practitioners were committed to improving people’s health effectively and fairly and, to achieve this, worked iteratively between providing people with opportunities for healthy living and enabling them to use the opportunities available to them, concentrating on disadvantaged communities. Practitioners were also committed to evidence-based practice and used different types of evidence for different practical and strategic purposes. Their ideal evidence met both substantive and procedural criteria for evaluating evidence and was primarily generated by practitioners because they found it to be the most useful and relevant to their practice. However, this evidence was lacking in the current evidence base and was not often valued by the system they worked in. Conclusion: This thesis describes practitioners’ conceptualisation of health promotion and how it is translated into their day-to-day practice. It also clarifies the way evidence is valued and used by practitioners, and offers an empirically-based contribution to the ongoing discussions on what and how evidence should be used to guide health promotion practice.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,022 | 0,041 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».