Applying Systems Thinking Approaches to Address Preventive Health Factors through Public Parks and Recreation Agencies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Within the United States parks and recreation agencies (P&R) manage public facilities, spaces, lands, and recreation programs. Public health (PH) evidence has increasingly pointed to local public P&R agencies as critical for promoting preventive health. Programs and strategies are available, but most P&R agencies have limited resources and lack local knowledge on which to base actions. However, the research base is growing. The global research question has shifted from asking IF P&R agencies can positively affect PH factors, to HOW they can best do so with limited resources.This research adapted a systems theory approach to how local public P&R agencies are addressing health factors. Methods included a literature review along with iterative exploration through a three-stage Delphi panel study with 17 P&R agency Expert Panelists in the U.S and Canada. Panelists were identified through a waterfall selection process. Each had at least three years of senior administration experience with interest in addressing PH factors.The study explored which preventive factors appear to be most modifiable by P&R. Results indicated increased physical activity, improved nutrition, enhanced safety or perception of safety, increased social and parental engagement, improved transportation and access to locations (especially nature), and cessation or reduced overconsumption of tobacco and alcohol. However, the priority of factors varies by community, and the continuing challenge is determining the priority of the factors for agencies and their partners to address. Community-specific data are not typically readily available to P&R agencies. Programs, strategies, internal methods, policies, and documents utilized by agencies were collected. Thirty-one related national initiatives (programs) were identified and ranked by the panelists.Key common strategies for P&R were identified. Results indicated a need to focus strategies on leadership and adequate funding to create a strong organizational culture of systematic assessment for addressing PH through allocation of P&R staff and financial resources. Systems thinking analysis and strategies can improve outcomes for cultural ethics of inclusion and equity, equitable access to assets and programs, collaboration with other partners, utilization of crime prevention and environmental design strategies, increased health promotions and education, and centralized tracking and evaluation of feasible measures.Implications for research include needs for additional validation and dissemination of research, evidence-based tools, and proven methods. There continues to be a strong need to help address gaps in knowledge transfer between research and practice realms. Management implications suggest methods for practice to enhance systems-thinking approaches for better preventive health outcomes through P&R in communities.
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 | 0,044 | 0,021 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,010 |
| Communication savante | 0,014 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».