Engaging Canadian youth in conversations: Using knowledge exchange in school-based health promotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The voice of youth is crucial to advancing solutions that contribute to effective strategies to improve youth health outcomes. The problem, however, is that youth/student voices are often overlooked, and stakeholders typically engage in decision-making without involving youth. The burden of chronic disease is increasing worldwide, and in Canada chronic disease accounts for 89 per cent of deaths. However, currently, youth spend less time being physically active while engaging in more unhealthy eating behaviours than ever before. High rates of unhealthy behaviours such as physical inactivity, unhealthy eating and tobacco use are putting Canadian youth at risk of health problems such as increased levels of overweight and obesity, cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. Focus group methodology was utilised to conduct 7 focus groups with 50 students in grades 7–12 from schools in Prince Edward Island, Canada. The key themes that emerged included: (1) youth health issues such as lack of opportunities to be physically active, cost and quality of healthy food options, and bullying; (2) facilitators and barriers to health promotion, including positive peer and adult role models, positive relationships with adults and competitiveness of school sports; and (3) lack of student voice. Our findings suggest that actively engaging youth provides opportunities to understand youth perspectives on how to encourage them to make healthy choices and engage in healthy behaviours. Attention needs to be paid to inclusive knowledge exchange practices that value and integrate youth perspectives and ideas as a basis for building health promotion actions and interventions.Keywords: knowledge exchange, youth health, youth engagement
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 | 0.030 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".