It's here! Are we ready? Five case studies of health promotion practices that address climate change from within Victorian health care settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Issue addressed Climate changes and environmental degradation caused by anthropogenic activities are having an irrefutable impact on human health. The critical role played by health promotion in addressing environmental challenges has a history in seminal charters – such as the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion – that explicitly link human well-being with the natural environment. The lack of documented practice in this field prompted an investigation of health promotion practice that addresses climate change issues within health care settings. Methods This qualitative study involved five case studies of Victorian health care agencies that explicitly identified climate change as a priority. Individual and group interviews with ten health promotion funded practitioners as well as document analysis techniques were used to explore diverse practices across these rural, regional and urban health care agencies. Results Health promotion practice in these agencies was oriented toward: active and sustainable transport; healthy and sustainable food supply; mental health and community resilience; engaging vulnerable population groups such as women; and organisational development. Conclusion Despite differences in approach, target population and context, the core finding was that health promotion strategies, competencies and frameworks were transferable to action on climate change in these health care settings. So what? The flexibility and innovation inherent to health promotion approaches to complex, multi-causal problems, is complementary to the emerging work in the field of sustainability – cementing health promotion's central place in promoting the health of people and communities, now and into the future.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".