Organizational capacity for community development in regional health authorities: a conceptual model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The value of community development (CD) practices is well documented in the health promotion literature; it is a foundational strategy outlined in the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Despite the importance of collaborative action with communities to enhance individual and community health and well-being, there exists a major gap between the evidence for CD and the actual extent to which CD is carried out by health organizations. In this paper it is argued that the gap exists because we have failed to turn the evaluative gaze inward-to examine the capacity of health organizations themselves to facilitate CD processes. This study was designed to explicate key elements that contribute to organizational capacity for community development (OC-CD). Twenty-two front-line CD workers and managers responsible for CD initiatives from five regional health authorities in Alberta, Canada, were interviewed. Based on the study findings, a multidimensional model for conceptualizing OC-CD is presented. Central to the model are four inter-related dimensions: (i) organizational commitment to CD, rooted in particular values and beliefs, leadership and shared understanding of CD; (ii) supportive structures and systems, such as job design, flexible planning processes, evaluation mechanisms and collaborative processes; (iii) allocation of resources for CD; and (iv) working relationships and processes that model CD within the health organization. These four dimensions contribute to successful CD practice in numerous ways, but perhaps most importantly by supporting the empowerment and autonomy of the pivotal organizational player in health promotion practice: the front-line worker.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".