Health Promotion and Community Development: An application of Occupational Therapy in Primary Health Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper shares the experiences of 3 occupational therapists whose work has been guided by health promotion and mental health promotion principles while using community development strategies. Although health promotion has been lauded for over 2 decades as a useful model from which to practice community occupational therapy, few illustrations of its application to practice exist. The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion is reviewed as a starting point from which to frame mental health promotion and community development strategies. Two group programs are presented to illustrate an occupational therapy application of the health promotion model and community development strategies within a primary health care setting. Lessons learned from the therapists' work are shared in terms of conceptual understandings of community occupations, consumer barriers to participation, sustainability of community development projects, and balancing individual client issues with community-level interventions. The programs exemplify the role of occupational therapy in the development of community participation opportunities for interested individuals.
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 | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| 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".