An Analysis of the Structural Factors Affecting the Public Participation in Health Promotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study focuses on analyzing national and international Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) studies published from 2000 to 2010 in order to identify and categorize the possible factors that affect social participation for improving the public health. Clearly, improving the public health necessitates a combination of the participation and responsibility by the social members and the attempts by public health policy-makers and planners. CBPR studies are selected as the corpus since they seek to encourage active and informed participation of the social members in fulfilling the health related goals. The present study is conducted through meta-synthesis within a qualitative framework. The results revealed a set of factors within the structural capacities which were employed by the CBPR researchers for achieving the health promotion goals. The structural capacities employed in the interventions could be considered on the cultural and social grounds. The cultural grounds were divided into scientific and religious attempts. For the scientific attempts, the results highlighted the participation of higher education institutes including universities and research centers as well as educational institutes such as schools and the relevant institutions. And regarding the religious attempts, the results indicated that the cooptation of religious centers played the greatest role in enhancing the public participation.
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 | 0.026 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".