The Ecological Approach in Tobacco-Control Practice: Health Promotion Practitioner Characteristics Related to Using the Ecological Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify cognitive factors and personal characteristics related to the integration of the ecological approach in the everyday practice of health promotion practitioners. DESIGN: Sociodemographic, cognitive, and behavior data were collected using a cross-sectional mail survey. SETTING: Information was collected from regional public health organizations (n = 129) in the 10 Canadian provinces. SUBJECTS: Health promotion practitioners involved in tobacco-control programming for youth (n = 524) comprised of 81% women with a mean age of 39 years. MEASURES: Attempts to integrate ecological strategies (i.e., interpersonal, organizational, and policy change) into tobacco-control practice were based on three self-report items. Six scales assessed knowledge, values, and normative beliefs about the ecological approach as well as perceived need for, effectiveness of, and competency regarding using the ecological approach. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 80%. Stepwise discriminant analyses revealed four predictors (p < .001) contributing to the function solution concerning practitioner attempts to target the interpersonal environment: perceived competency, training discipline, years doing health promotion, and gender. Three predictors (p < .001) contributed to each of the function solutions concerning practitioner attempts to target the organizational environment (perceived competency, perceived effectiveness, and normative beliefs) and practitioner attempts at policy change (perceived competency, knowledge, and normative beliefs). CONCLUSIONS: Tobacco-control practitioners who perceive themselves as having the skills to develop and/or implement interventions targeting a person's environment are more likely to target the environment for change.
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 | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".