Enabling health systems transformation: what progress has been made in re-orienting health services?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ottawa Charter has been remarkably influential in guiding the development of the goals and concepts of health promotion, and in shaping global public health practice in the past 20 years. However, of the five action areas identified in the Ottawa Charter, it appears that there has been little systematic attention to the challenge of re-orienting health services, and less than optimal progress in practice. The purposes of re-orienting health services as proposed in the Ottawa Charter were to achieve a better balance in investment between prevention and treatment, and to include a focus on population health outcomes alongside the focus on individual health outcomes. However, there is little evidence that a re-orientation of health services in these terms has occurred systematically anywhere in the world. This is in spite of the fact that direct evidence of the need to re-orient health services and of the potential benefits of doing so has grown substantially since 1986. Patient education, preventive care (screening, immunisation), and organisational and environmental changes by health organisations have all been found to have positive health and environmental outcomes. However, evidence of effectiveness has not been sufficient, on its own, to sway community preferences and political decisions. The lack of progress points to the need for significant re-thinking of the approaches we have adopted to date. The paper proposes a number of ways forward. These include working effectively in partnership with the communities we want to serve to mobilise support for change, and to reinforce this by working more effectively at influencing broader public opinion through the media. The active engagement of clinical health professionals is also identified as crucial to achieving sustainable change. Finally we recognize that by working in partnership with like-minded advocacy organizations, the IUHPE could put its significant knowledge and experience to work in leading action to transform health care systems to make a major contribution to the improvement of public health.
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 | 0.053 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".