Popular Health Promotion Strategies Among Chinese and East Indian Immigrant Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To advance understanding about the popular health promotion strategies and factors associated with the successful transfer and uptake of health messages among Chinese and Indian immigrant women. METHODS: Eight focus groups were conducted with 46 immigrant women, 24 from Mainland China and 22 from India, who had lived less than 5 years in Canada. Audiotaped data were transcribed, translated and analyzed by identification of themes and subcategories within and between groups. RESULTS: In both ethnic groups, discussions on promoting health messages had five major themes, i.e., sources, barriers, facilitators, credibility and ways to improve access along with group specific sub-themes. Despite identification of several diverse sources of health information in the adopted country, Indian and Chinese immigrant women perceived most strategies as not very effective. The reasons of perceived ineffectiveness were barriers to accessing and comprehending the health messages; and limited prior exposure to institution based or formal health promotion initiatives. These women were more familiar with informal means of obtaining health information such as social networks, mass media and written materials in their mother tongue. CONCLUSION: Existing health communication and health promotion models need to be re-orientated from a one-way information flow to a two-way dialogue model to bridge the gap between program efficacy and effectiveness to reach underserved immigrant women. An "outside the box" approach of non-institutional informal health promotion strategies needs to be tested for the studied groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".