Barriers to population-focused health promotion: the experience of public health nurses in the province of Manitoba.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing evidence that population health is influenced by broad socio-environmental factors that require population-focused health promotion strategies. The author reports on a study of the perspectives of public health nurses (PHNs) on the nature of their health promotion practice in the Canadian province of Manitoba, highlighting their perceptions about barriers to population-focused health promotion. A descriptive, exploratory research design was used to conduct standardized open-ended interviews with 24 PHNs in 3 geographically and demographically diverse health authorities. There were remarkable similarities in PHNs' perceptions about their practice. Three categories of barrier to population-focused health promotion were identified: barriers at the level of individual PHNs; organizational barriers (culture, policies, processes); and extra-organizational barriers at the level of the community or province. The results point to a gap between the theory that population-focused health promotion is at the heart of PHN practice and the experience of PHNs at the 3 sites. A concerted effort to address the barriers is needed so that PHNs in Manitoba can play a leadership role in creating a health-care system that truly invests in population health.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".