Factors Facilitating the Implementation of Church-Based Heart Health Promotion Programs for Older Adults: A Qualitative Study Guided by the Precede-Proceed Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the factors facilitating the implementation of heart health promotion programs for older adults in Anglican, United, and Catholic churches. DESIGN: The study used qualitative methods comprising semistructured interviews and focus groups. SETTING: The interviews and focus groups were conducted in Anglican, Catholic, and United churches located in the Canadian cities of Toronto and Hamilton, Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve ordained pastors and 21 older parishioners who attended church regularly and who had no health conditions were recruited to best explain how churches could be suitable locations for health promotion activities targeting older adults. METHODS: Twelve semistructured interviews with the pastors and three focus groups with the 21 parishioners were undertaken. A component of the Precede-Proceed model (a model for planning health education and health promotion programs and policies) was applied to the findings after direct content analysis of the data. RESULTS: Participants identified pastor leadership, funding for a parish nurse, community-focused interventions, secured infrastructure, and social support from congregation members as pertinent factors required for implementing health promotion programs in Anglican, United, and Catholic churches. CONCLUSION: The findings have particular relevance for health promotion and public health because they suggest factors that would be necessary to design church-based heart health promotion programs for older adults at risk of chronic diseases.
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 | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".