Community capacity building in practice: constructing its meaning and relevance to health promoters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community capacity building (CCB) is held up as a benchmark for sustainable health promotion, reflecting the empowering discourse of the Ottawa Charter (WHO 1986). In light of concerns that this language may be that of the presiding bureaucratic elite rather than the realities of those working directly with communities (Laverack & Labonte 2000), we question whether CCB reflects the work of New Zealand health promoters. The aim of this study is to assess what CCB means to health promoters and how relevant it is to their work in New Zealand. Focus groups and interviews were carried out with 64 health promoters between January 2008 and March 2009. The results of this qualitative study indicated that, while the terminology of CCB is poorly established in New Zealand, the overwhelming majority of participants felt that, to be an effective health promoter, they needed the buy-in and support of the communities in which they work. As a result, community-driven approaches have emerged as a core component of good health promotion practice in New Zealand. Yet, the concept of CCB was applied loosely with health promoters adopting language and practices corresponding more with the nuances of community development. The limited use of systematic approaches to building community capacity was accompanied by few successes achieving sustainable health promotion programmes. In prioritising community relationships many health promoters were placed in an ideological bind whereby achieving community ownership over health promotion meant compromising the evidence base of their programmes. Academic discussions of CCB appear to have gained little traction into the realm of health promotion practice in New Zealand highlighting the need for relevant research with a strong grounding in practice.
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 | 0.042 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.128 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".