Evaluation of the health promotion activities of paediatric nurses: Is the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion a useful framework?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers were involved in an evaluative approach to examine the health promotion activities of paediatric nurses from a paediatric tertiary hospital centre (N = 83) and five paediatric non-tertiary hospital centres (N = 48) from Sydney, Australia. The aims of this study were to understand the nature of heath promotion in paediatric nursing practice by examining nurses' attitudes, investigating paediatric nurses' involvement in the five action area of the Ottawa Charter, and identifying barriers to the implementation of health promotion in practice. The researchers developed a health promotion survey based around the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (World Health Organisation, 1986a), and a literature review of nurses' involvement in health promotion. Results showed that tertiary paediatric nurses undertook more varied health promotion activities such as creating supportive environments (CSE), reorienting health services (RHS) and building healthy public policy (BHPP) than did non-tertiary paediatric nurses who were involved in only one action area of the Charter, that of developing personal skills (DPS). This research revealed that within paediatric nursing practice the action areas of the Ottawa Charter of BHPP and CSE were important; and that there is support for the advocacy role of paediatric nurses. There is also evidence that paediatric nurses may have health promotion knowledge deficits associated with the Ottawa Charter, and that the environment of multidisciplinary allied health professionals in a tertiary paediatric centre may positively influence senior paediatric nurses and their capacity to be involved in varied health promotion activities associated with the Ottawa Charter.
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 | 0.097 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".