Development of a community health promotion center based on the World Health Organization's Ottawa Charter health promotion strategies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To describe the development process of nursing school-led community health promotion centers (CHPC) to improve the health of the surrounding communities. METHODS: This study design was a research and development study. (i) Assessment of health needs by interviewing 359 people in the community to select health programs for the community health promotion center. (ii) Five health promotion strategies from the Ottawa Charter were applied to develop the community health promotion center for a city community. RESULTS: (i) The people in the community had higher socioeconomic status levels and better health behaviors compared to the general Korean population, and they also listed chronic health problem management as their first priority health service. (ii) Development of the community health promotion center was done based on the five World Health Organization's Ottawa Charter Health Promotion Strategies: build healthy public policy, create supportive environments, strengthen community actions, develop personal skills, and reorient health services. CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed that the WHO's five Ottawa Charter Health Promotion Strategies were useful for developing health promotion centers in the community.
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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it