MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Health promoting hospitals: the role and function of nursing

2005· review· en· W2059562253 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 · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSchool Health and Nursing Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth promotionNursingCharterPublic relationsHealth policyMedicineContext (archaeology)EmpowermentSocial determinants of healthHealth carePublic healthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In 1986, the World Health Organisation's (WHO) Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion sought to create a framework that conveyed the notion of capacity building, related to specific settings, and a structured process for health promotion action. It provided the platform from which the health promoting hospital movement was later launched. Nearly two decades on, the health promoting hospital (HPH) movement has grown considerably and continues to expand, against the backdrop of having to adapt to the changing needs and demands of clients and the evolving social context of their communities. Many nurses, it is argued here, are often unaware of health promoting hospitals concepts or, when they are, do little to contribute to them. METHOD: A critical review of the available health promoting hospital and related literature has been conducted for discussion. FINDINGS: The literature revealed that hospitals are being urged to reject practices based purely on health-limiting and limited biomedical frameworks, in favour of moving towards models based on health promoting hospitals and public health-orientated hospitals. This requires radical reform that focuses on the social and health policy context of organizations, the socio-political empowerment of its employers and clients, and the personal/collective positive health and welfare of its employers and clients. Many health service agencies are beginning to emphasize population health within communities as part of a concerted move away from an original primary focus on acute inpatient hospital-based service provision. CONCLUSION: Hospitals 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 health care professional groups. Nurses who practice in the hospital setting should be aiming to initiate and promote radical health promotion reform as set out in the health promoting hospital movement. This paper argues that nursing per se could be making much larger inroads and efforts to affect and implement wide-ranging health promotion activities in hospital organizations. Nurses should view the HPH movement as another opportunity truly to embrace evolving broad-based health promotion concepts, as a means to forge and own their own health agenda, and also as a means to move beyond the traditional reliance of a limited health education role. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Hospitals and their employees must be seen to advocate, support and implement wide-reaching social and community-based reform, as part of a necessary commitment to 'seamless' health care provision. The health promoting hospital movement represents a collective vehicle for enabling such activities. If nurses wish to be at the forefront of current health service strategies they must be seen to embrace the radical health promotion reforms that are emerging from the current literature and put forward in this article.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.004
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 head0.225
GPT teacher head0.621
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