Holism in nursing and health promotion: distinct or related perspectives? – A literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The concept of holism is central in health promotion as well as in nursing. Holism or a holistic view on health was identified as one of the key principles of the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion and is linked to social ecology and the determinants of health. AIMS: To explore how the term holism was defined and/or described in Nordic articles with a health-promotion approach, and how holism aspects were related to nursing and health promotion, and to the other key principles of the Ottawa Charter. METHODS: Abstracts were first identified by the search word 'health promotion' as a keyword. The search was limited to 1986-2008 and abstracts written in English by authors with a Nordic affiliation. Abstracts/articles for this study were subsequently selected from these abstracts using the search words 'holism' and 'holistic' and analysed by quantitative and manifest qualitative content analysis. FINDINGS: The sample included 23 articles: one theoretical, two reviews and 20 empirical studies. Sixteen articles included a hospital setting or nursing perspective. A holistic perspective could be extracted from most articles. No larger but several minor differences were identified in the way holism aspects were related to nursing and health promotion respectively. CONCLUSION: There is a risk that the individual patient perspective of holism in nursing may result in less chance of reaching larger groups of patients with chronic diseases and mental health problems, not least the most vulnerable ones.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".