Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hospitals are specific organizational settings for health promotion efforts. As health care institutions they are already oriented at health, or better at ill health, but with a rather limited focus on health outcomes for patients. Therefore, the Ottawa Charter explicitly asks for the reorientation of health services. And, hospitals also have considerable health effects for other stakeholder populations. This specific potential and challenge has been taken up by the WHO network of Health Promoting Hospitals (HPH), in the last two decades. Based on available literature the article relates the HPH concept to a more general paradigm of health promoting organizational settings; reconstructs the developmental phases of the international WHO HPH Network; elaborates on its concept development and implementation experiences, and discusses its rather limited investments in evaluation studies and the few assessments from outside. HPH has developed a convincing comprehensive concept by demonstration projects, using systematically action and evaluation research. To a lesser degree, the same holds true for its developments of health promotion policies for selected vulnerable groups and linking HPH to quality methodology. But there is no systematic evaluation of health promotion in and by hospitals, especially for the networks and member hospitals of HPH. Even if much of the relevant evidence for HPH comes and will have to come from more general clinical epidemiological, health promotion, quality, organizational and management research, there is need for specific HPH evaluation research, to better utilize, what can be learned from the social experiment of HPH.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.070 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".