Health promotion in Australian multi-disciplinary primary health care services: case studies from South Australia and the Northern Territory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on the health promotion and disease prevention conducted at Australian multi-disciplinary primary health care (PHC) services and considers the ways in which the organizational environment affects the extent and type of health promotion and disease prevention activity. The study involves five PHC services in Adelaide and one in Alice Springs. Four are managed by a state health department and two by boards of governance. The study is based on an audit of activities and on 68 interviews conducted with staff. All the sites undertake health promotion and recognize its importance but all report that this activity is under constant pressure resulting from the need to provide services to people who have health problems. We also found an increased focus on chronic disease management and prevention which prioritized individuals and behavioural change strategies rather than addressing social determinants affecting whole communities. There was little health promotion work that reflected a salutogenic approach to the creation of health. Most activity falls under three types: parenting and child development, chronic disease prevention and mental health. Only the non-government organizations reported advocacy on broader policy issues. Health reform and consequent reorganizations were seen to reduce the ability of some services to undertake health promotion. The paper concludes that PHC in Australia plays an important role in disease prevention, but that there is considerable scope to increase the amount of community-based health promotion which focuses on a salutogenic view of health and which engages in community partnerships.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".