MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The health‐promoting school: what role for nursing?

2006· review· en· W2022518172 on OpenAlex
Dean Whitehead

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Nursing · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSchool Health and Nursing Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth promotionNursingCharterHealth educationOccupational health nursingHealth careHealth policyContext (archaeology)International healthPublic relationsMedicinePolitical sciencePublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To review the existing literature on health-promoting schools and put forward recommendations for continuing progress. BACKGROUND: The World Health Organisation's Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion in 1986 sought to create a framework for health promotion action that conveyed the notion of capacity building as it related to specific settings. It provided the catalyst from which the health-promoting school movement emerged, against the backdrop of health professionals adapting to the changing needs and demands of clients and the evolving social context of the communities in which they live. Since then, the international health-promoting school movement has been one of the most successful of the settings-based projects and has expanded considerably over recent years. METHOD: An extensive review of available health-promoting school-related literature provides the basis for critical discussion and recommendations. FINDINGS: Traditionally, the school nursing movement has provided the backbone of nursing-related health promotion activity in the school setting. The literature, however, is generally critical of its contribution over the years - especially as its role is mainly confined to a 'conventional' health education function and has little to do with health-promoting school projects. There are more and more calls now for the school nursing service to either re-evaluate its function and processes or be devolved back into a broader primary health care practitioner role. CONCLUSION: Nurses should view the health-promoting school movement as another opportunity to embrace evolving broad-based health promotion concepts truly, as a means to forge and own their own health agenda and also as a means to move beyond a traditional reliance on a limited health education role. Schools also need to adapt and expand their efforts to focus on health promotion activities, in collaboration with the ever-widening community networks of health and social agencies. This requires the commitment of all healthcare professional groups. Nurses who practice in all settings, and not just school nurses, should be aiming to initiate and promote radical health promotion reform as set out in the health-promoting school movement. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: If health professionals wish to be at the forefront of current health-promoting school strategies they must embrace the radical health promotion reforms that are emerging from the current literature and put forward in this article. Building such group capacity, through developing social interaction, cohesion, participation and political action can only benefit the community at large and further emphasize the health promotion role of nursing. The health-promoting school movement is truly an international concept and, as such, deserves a concerted nursing representation and resourcing well beyond its current commitment.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.243
GPT teacher head0.639
Teacher spread0.396 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it