The Ottawa Charter—from nursing theory to practice: Insights from the area of alcohol and other drugs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to assist nursing services to use the Ottawa Charter as a framework for nursing practice. Incorporation of the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion into a nursing structure constitutes an innovation in nursing practice that was evaluated as a quality improvement exercise in a health-care organization responsible for providing services in the area of alcohol and other drugs. The evaluation consisted of two stages and sought to identify the degree to which the framework was effective in practice. This involved identifying issues surrounding the implementation of the Ottawa Charter as a framework for nursing practice as well as identifying the means by which quality improvements could occur. The evaluation involved an initial questionnaire to all nursing staff, followed by a series of focus groups. The data collected was both informative and enlightening and revealed a range of pertinent issues such as staff understanding and interpretation of the Ottawa Charter, expansion of the nurse's role and suggestions for organizational change. The Ottawa Charter strategies are discussed in relation to their relevance to the organization under evaluation and also expanded into recommendations to assist those contemplating using the Ottawa Charter as a framework for nursing practice. There was considerable agreement among the respondents that the Ottawa Charter provided a useful framework for nursing practice but was on occasions problematic.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".