Strengthening Health Development at the Community Level in Thailand: What Events Should Be Managed?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community action for health development is important for sustaining community health. This study aimed to identify the components and processes for strengthening the community health development process. We used an exploratory, cross-sectional design and focus group discussions in Chonburi, Thailand, between March 2003 and April 2005. We interviewed 422 respondents selected by stratified sampling from various groups involved with community health activities. Interview data was analyzed and then clarified by focus group discussions with representatives of the communities and stakeholders. Results indicated that both study components, namely, community experience in health activities and appearance of health conditions in the community, as well as all of their subcomponents, influence community action for health development. The most influential subcomponent of the community experience in health activities was perception of health information and policy (p < .001; r = .546). The most influential subcomponent of the appearance of health conditions in the community was the impact of health information (p < .001; r = .439). Focus group discussions indicated the communities' potential, ideas and need to activate health development by community mobilization. We recommend that the government encourage and support community action for health development with the subcomponents identified by this study. The process of community empowerment and network of implementation should encourage successful and sustainable health development by the community.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".