Empowerment in the field of health promotion: recognizing challenges in working toward equity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last 25 years, the language of empowerment has been woven into the guiding missions and descriptions of institutions, funding and projects globally. Although theoretical understandings of empowerment within the domain of health promotion remain contentious, we have little idea of how a shift toward an empowerment agenda has affected the daily work of those in the field of health promotion. A systematic examination of the implementation of the empowerment agenda is important as it can help us understand how redistributive agendas are received within the multiple institutional contexts in which health promotion work is carried out. The goal of this study, therefore, was to try to understand the empowerment agenda within the context of everyday health promotion. We conducted semi-structured interviews with health promoters from a variety of geographical regions, institutional backgrounds, and job capacities. Essentially we found that empowerment remains conceptually dear to health promoters' understanding of their work, yet at the same time, mainstreaming empowerment is at odds with central trends and initiatives that govern this work. We argue that many of the stumbling blocks that have hindered this specific agenda are actually central stumbling blocks for the wider field of health promotion. We examine some of the barriers to implementing transformational change. Overcoming the primary limitations uncovered in this exploration of empowerment is actually crucial to progressive work in health promotion in general, particularly work that would seek to lessen inequities.
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 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 | 0.017 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".