Understanding Facilitators of and Barriers to Health Promotion Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The health promotion best practices literature is imbued with hope for knowledge mobilization, enhanced practice, and improved population health. Given constrained medical care systems, health promotion is key to reducing the significant burden of chronic disease. However, we have seen little evidence of change. This article investigates facilitators of, and barriers to, three stages of health promotion practice in public health organizations, interagency coalitions, and volunteer committees. The article focuses not on what works but why it does or does not, drawing on five case studies within the Canadian Heart Health Initiative. Results indicate that the presence or absence of appropriately committed and/or skilled people, funds and/or resources, and priority and/or interest are the most common factors affecting all stages of health promotion practice. The article extends the literature on internal and external factors affecting health promotion and highlights strategic influences to consider in support of effective health promotion practice.
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 | 0.026 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".