Continuing Education for Health Promotion: A Case Study of Needs Assessment Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, both practical barriers and conceptual problems have been identified concerning needs assessment work in adult and continuing education. This article provides an empirical study of needs assessment research that was conducted to support university-based continuing education programming in the field of health promotion in Saskatchewan. We describe the context of the Saskatchewan Heart Health Program (SHHP), narrate the development, findings, and outcomes of a significant needs assessment process, and identify implications of our work for other university continuing educators. Although formal needs assessment practices such as those described in this article may not always be appropriate for university continuing educators, they can be beneficial to marketing and pedagogical efforts. The SHHP needs assessment process encouraged our learners to actively and collectively reflect upon their learning priorities, increased their receptivity to our continuing education efforts, and provided us with an opportunity to role model a collaborative approach to health promotion program development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".