Implementation, Effectiveness and Political Context of Comprehensive Primary Health Care: Preliminary Findings of a Global Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primary health care (PHC) is again high on the international agenda. It was the theme of The World Health Report in 2008, thirty years after the Alma-Ata Declaration, and has been the topic of a series of significant conferences around the world throughout 2008. What have we learnt about its impact in improving population health and health equity? What more do we still need to know? These two questions frame a four-year international research/capacity-building project, 'Revitalizing Health for All' (RHFA), funded by the Canadian Global Health Research Initiative (http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-108118-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html). The RHFA project is organised under the umbrella of the People’s Health Movement (http://www.phmovement.org/en) and the International People’s Health University (http://phmovement.org/iphu/), and involves researchers from over a dozen countries. Our project team’s understanding of PHC is of a comprehensive approach aimed at reducing health inequities that is based on meaningful community participation, multidisciplinary teams and action across sectors.
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 | 0.089 | 0.185 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".