Health Promotion Health Center Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: As part of a major government support for health promotion, a health promotion health center (HPHC) project was launched at the national level in Korea. The purpose of the study was to describe this 2-year HPHC project within the framework of the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion and to evaluate the preliminary outcomes of the community residents. DESIGN: A cross-sectional design was used. SAMPLE: A total of 2,261 community residents participated in the survey, with 792 in HPHC sites and 1,469 in non-HPHC sites. MEASUREMENT: The instrument included questions on participants' demographic characteristics, awareness, participation, health behavior (smoking, exercise, meat consumption, and blood pressure checkup), and satisfaction with the health promotion programs. RESULTS: The 5 main health promotion strategies of the Ottawa Charter were evident in the HPHCs. HPHCs were successful in enhancing awareness, participation, and satisfaction through their health promotion programs, although health behaviors were not significantly different between the 2 groups, except exercise. CONCLUSION: Ottawa Charter strategies embedded within the practice of the community health promotion activities were effective in increasing the short-term outcomes (awareness, participation, and satisfaction with health promotion programs), which is a promising finding for the development of health promotion behaviors in the future.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.129 | 0.031 |
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".