Unpacking Assumptions About Inclusion in Community-Based Health Promotion: Perspectives of Women Living in Poverty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community-based health promoters often aim to facilitate "inclusion" when working with marginalized women to address their exclusion and related health issues. Yet the notion of inclusion has not been critically interrogated within this field, resulting in the perpetuation of assumptions that oversimplify it. We provide qualitative evidence on inclusion as a health-promotion strategy from the perspectives of women living in poverty. We collected data with women engaged in a 6-year community-based health promotion and feminist participatory action research project. Participants' experiences illustrated that inclusion was a multidimensional process that involved a dynamic interplay between structural determinants and individual agency. The women named multiple elements of inclusion across psychosocial, relational, organizational, and participatory dimensions. This knowledge interrupts assumptions that inclusion is achievable and desirable for so-called recipients of such initiatives. We thus call for critical consideration of the complexities, limitations, and possibilities of facilitating inclusion as a health-promotion strategy.
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 | 0.043 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".