How effective is the health‐promoting school approach in building social capital in primary schools?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe a study which investigated the relationship between the “health‐promoting school” (HPS) approach and social capital and tested the proposition that the implementation of an HPS intervention leads to a significant improvement in HPS features and social capital. Design/methodology/approach In this paper a prospective intervention study design was used and involved the comparison of an intervention population group and a comparison population group matched for school size, urban location, school type and socio‐economic status. The paper shows that the intervention group used the holistic HPS approach to promote resilience, whereas the comparison group did not use the HPS approach. In the intervention schools, 262 staff in the pre‐intervention phase, and 288 staff in the post‐intervention phase responded to the survey. In the control schools, 156 staff in the pre‐intervention phase, and 261 in the post‐intervention phase responded. The HPS Scale derived from the Ottawa Charter and the Social Capital Scale derived from the Social Capital Index were used at the school community level. Findings The findings of this paper show that there was a statistically significant relationship between HPS indicators and social capital. The evidence indicates that an HPS approach to build social capital is effective. Practical implications The results in this paper indicate that social capital embedded in the HPS structure has the capacity to substantially affect relationships that people have with one another and the school psychosocial environment. Originality/value This paper provides health educators with resource strategies to promote social capital within the HPS program framework.
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".