MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127351230

Barriers to population-focused health promotion: the experience of public health nurses in the province of Manitoba.

2006· article· en· W2127351230 on OpenAlexaffabout
Benita Cohen

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPublic Health Policies and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth promotionPublic healthPopulation healthPopulationNursingPublic health nursingHealth careMedicineEnvironmental healthPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.230
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPublic Health Policies and EducationFrench-language works237,207