Determinants of implementing heart health promotion activities in Ontario public health units: a social ecological perspective
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports the results of a study undertaken to explain levels of implementation of heart health promotion activities observed in Ontario public health agencies in 1997. Organizational-level data were collected by surveying all 42 health departments in 1994, 1996 and 1997 as part of the Canadian Heart Health Initiative Ontario Project. Guided by social ecological and organizational theories, the model examines relationships between implementation and four sets of possible determinants of activity: (1) the predisposition of agencies to undertake heart health promotion activities, (2) their capacity to undertake these activities, (3) internal organizational factors and (4) external system factors. A small set of five variables explains almost half of the variance in implementation (R2 = 0.46): organizational capacity (beta = 0.40), priority given to heart health (beta = 0.36), coordination of programs (beta = 0.19), use of resource centers (beta = 0.12) and participation in networks (beta = 0.09). The results suggest that models integrating organizational and socio-ecological theories can help us understand the implementation of community-based heart health promotion activities by public health agencies. Implications for future research, policy and practice are discussed.
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.
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 | 0.021 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 it