[Health promotion and primary prevention strategies to fight chronic disease: a systematic review].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze health promotion and primary prevention strategies in the global fight against chronic noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) and to reflect on the challenges of overcoming these diseases. METHODS: In this systematic literature review, studies were analyzed on health programs identified by the Brazilian Health Ministry as the main global community intervention initiatives: the North Karelia Project, in Finland; the Stanford Three-Community Study, Stanford Five-City Project, Minnesota Heart Health and Pawtucket Heart Health Program, in the United States; the CINDI project, in Europe and Canada; CARMEN in South America; Mirame, in Chile; and Tianjin, in China. The LILACS, Medline, and SciELO databases were searched, as well as the Brazilian Health Ministry, Pan American Health Organization, and World Health Organization websites. Only original articles analyzing primary data were included. The outcomes evaluated in the studies were cholesterol, blood pressure, obesity, physical activity level, tobacco use, dietary habits, and other risk factors for NCDs. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were selected. The North Karelia Project, Three Community Study, and Five-City Multifactor Risk Reduction Project contributed to decrease tobacco use, cholesterol levels, and blood pressure levels. The Minnesota Heart Health Program and the Pawtucket Heart Health Program had moderate success in reducing the risk factors for NCD. The CINDI and CARMEN programs demonstrated the importance of integrated actions for decreasing the main risk factors. The Mirame project, which focused on educational interventions for school children, reached 30,000 students in 2001 without requiring a large financial investment. The Tianjin project was able to reduce salt intake, prevalence of arterial hypertension, and obesity by restructuring primary health care services. CONCLUSIONS: These successful experiences in community health improvement may serve as models for the implementation of more effective health policies, aiming at the development of actions that integrate health promotion and primary prevention of the main risk factors for NCDs.
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 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".