Health promotion in Swedish schools: school managers' views
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Schools are recognized worldwide as settings for health promotion, and leadership has a bearing on schools' ability to be health promoting. School managers have a great influence on what is prioritized in school, which in turn affects students' school performance and health. There is lack of research into school managers' views on health promotion, and what they consider to be central to health promotion. The aim was therefore to examine school managers' views about what health promotion in schools include. An explorative design, qualitative content analysis, was performed. In-depth interviews were conducted with all 13 school managers of a middle-sized municipality in central Sweden. The analysis had both manifest and latent content and three categories: 'Organization and Collaboration', 'Optimize the arena' and 'Strengthen the individual', and 10 subcategories emerged. The theme, 'Opportunities for learning and a good life', describes the latent content of these categories. Taking into account the views of school managers are important because these views help form a more complete picture of how school managers work with health promotion and what is needed to enhance health promotion to improve students' opportunities for learning and a good life. The Ottawa Charter for Health promotion is thereby transformed into practice.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".