Health promotion, health education, and the public’s health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Health promotion is a complex, ambiguous concept and set of practices. While many have linked it, primarily, to a revolution in health education, its roots go much deeper into the history of public health. It had its contemporary beginnings in the throes of the backlash against bureaucratic and professional dominance exemplified by the new social movements of the 1970s and 1980s. At its heart, health promotion is centred on the values and principles of equity, participation, and empowerment. These concepts are embedded in health promotion’s founding document, the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. However, exactly how these values are articulated is often ambiguous. In this chapter, the authors contend that health promoters must intensify their reflection on these core values and principles; particularly in the light of the tendency to slip back into a comfortable paternalism, which reinforces existing power imbalances. We are specifically concerned with the precise interpretation of health equity in health promotion. In order to pursue a deeper level of reflection on the meaning of equity, it is argued that health promotion must engage more deeply with recent developments in political philosophy, political economy and social theory. Following up from the work of the WHO Commission on the Social Determinants of Health, one of health promotion’s emerging priorities is a reinvigorated push for the global development of ‘healthy public policy’ as seen in the Health in All Policies (HiAP) movement. In this updated chapter, we also address the need for health promotion to engage more directly with core social theoretical concepts related to the generation of social inequalities that underlie health inequities; finally, we explore the relevance of complexity science and systems thinking for health promotion research.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".