Managerial attitudes on the development of health promoting hospitals in Beijing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2002, the Beijing Committee for Disease Prevention launched guidelines based on the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion on health promoting hospitals (HPHs). HPH pilot projects were then initiated, on a voluntary basis, in 44 Beijing hospitals. Evaluations have been undertaken to assess the impacts of the pilot project. This article outlines this HPH project, its development and evaluation and reports on the attitudes and contribution of hospital management as determined by questionnaires and interviews from 281 managerial employees from 106 Beijing hospitals (93 from pilot hospitals and 188 from control). The results of the evaluation indicate that long-term health promotion planning and health promotion specialized funds have been better established in pilot hospitals than in the control group and also that the concept of HPH is better understood by managerial staff in pilot hospitals than by those in control hospitals. The main perceived barriers faced in the development of HPH are shortages of funds, personnel, time management and professional skills. To further develop HPHs in China, effort needs to be made to ensure that hospital leaders and management are considered first. If managerial staff have an appropriate understanding of the concept and principles of HPH, then it is more likely that health promotion activities can be introduced into the daily workings of hospitals, and the necessary funds, personnel and training on health promotion skills be provided.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".