Does reported health promotion activity neglect people with ill-health?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considering health as an alternative to ill-health ignores the multidimensionality of both concepts and invites neglect of health promotion as a multidimensional activity in persons with known ill-health. Drawing on the Ottawa Charter and Mäori perspectives of health, we interpret (ill) health according to people's ability to function in their environment by developing physical, psychological, social and spiritual resources for living. We use this framework to test empirically our hypothesis that although the concept of health promotion has always included people with ill-health, the practice of health promotion has continued to neglect them. Our exploratory review of articles published during 1989-99 and indexed on three electronic databases suggests widespread omission of people with ill-health from research on interventions for health promotion. Of 881 citations, approximately three-quarters included people without ill-health in any dimension. This finding could reflect a failure to include these people in health promotion, to describe activity to improve their health as health promotion, or both. Supporting the latter interpretation is uncertainty over the meaning of health, and the targeting of health promotion at groups at high risk of ill-health and 'all' persons. We need therefore to enable health promotion activity to include ill people explicitly.
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 | 0.018 | 0.146 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".