Exploring Perceived Enablers and Barriers to Social Marketing Use in Public Health Nursing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public health managers' perceptions of enablers and barriers to social marketing use among public health nurses were examined. Employing qualitative, action research methods, this study incorporated focus groups using nominal group process and group discussion. Eleven public health managers from large urban, small urban, and rural Canadian public health departments participated. Content analysis was conducted on the focus group transcripts, and trustworthiness was strengthened through independent review by participants and subject experts. Several enablers to social marketing use were identified in the areas of educational preparation of nurses and the nature of public health nursing practice. The majority of barriers to social marketing use related to human and financial resources at the system level. In addition, we identified as imperative that managers at those levels responsible for budgetary planning understand the principles of social marketing more fully if they are to be expected to support its use. Social marketing has the potential to positively influence the health behavior of populations. However, if public health nurses and other health-promotion professions are to incorporate this health-promotion strategy more effectively into their practice, issues related to its use must be addressed.
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 | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".