Integrated health promotion strategies: a contribution to tackling current and future health challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper was presented as a technical background paper at the WHO sixth Global Conference on Health Promotion in Bangkok Thailand, August 2005. It describes what we know about the effectiveness of four of the Ottawa Charter health promotion strategies from eight reviews that have been conducted since 1999. The six lessons are that (i) the investment in building healthy public policy is a key strategy; (ii) supportive environments need to be created at the individual, social and structural levels; (iii) the effectiveness of strengthening community action is unclear and more research and evidence is required; (iv) personal skills development must be combined with other strategies to be effective; (v) interventions employing multiple strategies and actions at multiple levels are most effective; (vi) certain actions are central to effectiveness, such as intersectoral action and interorganizational partnerships at all levels, community engagement and participation in planning and decision-making, creating healthy settings (particularly focusing on schools, communities, workplaces and municipalities), political commitment, funding and infrastructure and awareness of the socio-environmental context. In addition, four case studies at the international, national, regional and local levels are described as illustrations of combinations of the key points described earlier. The paper concludes that the four Ottawa Charter strategies have been effective in addressing many of the issues faced in the late 20th century and that these strategies have relevance for the 21st century if they are integrated with one another and with the other actions described in this paper.
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 | 0.029 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".