¿Cómo abordar la dimensión colectiva de la salud de las personas? Informe SESPAS 2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La salud de los colectivos depende en gran parte de factores del entorno. Cabe plantearse cuál ha de ser el papel de los profesionales sanitarios, en especial de la salud pública y la atención primaria, en la formulación de objetivos y en el desarrollo de acciones para la mejora de la salud de la población. Se plantea un recorrido desde el conocimiento de las potencialidades y las necesidades de salud hasta las actividades que suponen una verdadera y positiva transformación, es decir, desde la información hasta la acción. Este recorrido transcurre a modo de conversacciones que sobre la salud cabe llevar a cabo. Se analiza la situación actual, sus debilidades y fortalezas, y se elaboran propuestas para todo el proceso: información, encuentro y acción. La información exige trascender los datos que las diferentes fuentes proporcionan, generando conocimiento a quienes pertenecen a la comunidad o están muy cerca de ella. Esta mirada debe contemplar, además de los déficits, los activos en salud, conocimiento útil para todos los que pueden influir en los determinantes de la salud, incluidos los sanitarios. Finalmente, al considerar las acciones para mejorar la salud, se insiste en los beneficios de la promoción de la salud en el sentido más genuino del término, mediante una reflexión en términos de efectividad y de eficiencia. El fracaso de una intervención que no consigue mejorar la salud, ¿se debe a su inutilidad o a que se desarrolla de manera inadecuada? The health of the population largely depends on environmental factors, raising the issue of what the role of health professionals, particularly those in public health and primary care, should be in the planning of objectives and actions for improvement. The present article proposes a trajectory, starting with knowledge of the community's strong points in health and its needs, and ending with taking action. This trajectory requires discussion on how information can be transformed into action. We analyze the current situation and its strengths and weaknesses, and make proposals for the entire process: from information to action. Information is more than just the available data gathered from different sources; it is also knowledge of those who belong to the community or are very close to it. This perspective should include both health deficits and health assets. This information should be used not only by health professionals, but by all those in a position to influence the determinants of health. Finally, when considering the actions required to improve the health of a community, we emphasize the benefits of health promotion, in the genuine sense of the term, by reflecting on effectiveness and efficiency. The question of whether the failure of an intervention to improve health is due to the futility of the action, or to be action being undertaken in an inefficient way, is 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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
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".