Faith communities and their assets for health promotion: the views from health professionals and faith leaders in Dundee, in Scotland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within the European Union, as well as in Canada and the United States (US), health promoters employ a number of strategies to encourage community-based health improvements. This involves the creation of innovative health promotion partnerships to support and enable people to choose and engage in healthy living practices. Compared to the US, in other Western countries, such as the United Kingdom, faith communities have largely been ignored in health promotion partnerships. This study established existing evidence about health promotion in faith communities in Scotland by examining the perceptions and attitudes concerning health promotion among faith leaders and health promotion professionals. We conducted 33 semi-structured interviews with health promotion professionals (n = 9) and representatives of Christian and non-Christian faith communities (n = 24). The majority of participants expressed an interest in the concept of health promotion in a faith community and could readily envision its application in their area of work. Both groups identified multiple physical assets, as well as social supports within faith communities that could be directed towards healthy living activities. Faith groups and church organisations may constitute potential partners and new settings to increase community capacity for health promotion. Further research and funding for demonstration projects may be particularly helpful to provide evidence of the strengths and limitations of faith-based health promotion in Scotland, which in turn could inform health promotion practice and policy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".