MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335856996 · doi:10.1093/heapro/dav097

Professional development programs in health promotion: tools and processes to favor new practices

2015· article· en· W2335856996 on OpenAlexafffund
Sara Torres, Lucie Richard, Anne Guichard, François Chiocchio, Éric Litvak, Nicole Beaudet

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion International · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCommunity Health and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité LavalUniversité de MontréalWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of OttawaDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversité de Montréal
KeywordsHealth promotionEmpowermentPublic healthPublic relationsEquity (law)SustainabilityNursingSociologyPsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developing innovative interventions that are in sync with a health promotion paradigm often represents a challenge for professionals working in local public health organizations. Thus, it is critical to have both professional development programs that favor new practices and tools to examine these practices. In this case study, we analyze the health promotion approach used in a pilot intervention addressing children's vulnerability that was developed and carried out by participants enrolled in a public health professional development program. More specifically, we use a modified version of Guichard and Ridde's (Une grille d'analyse des actions pour lutter contre les inégalités sociales de santé. In Potvin, L., Moquet, M.-J. and Jones, C. M. (eds), Réduire les Inégalités Sociales en Santé. INPES, Saint-Denis Cedex, pp. 297-312, 2010) analytical grid to assess deductively the program participants' use of health promotion practices in the analysis and planning, implementation, evaluation, sustainability and empowerment phases of the pilot intervention. We also seek evidence of practices involving (empowerment, participation, equity, holism, an ecological approach, intersectorality and sustainability) in the intervention. The results are mixed: our findings reveal evidence of the application of several dimensions of health promotion (equity, holism, an ecological approach, intersectorality and sustainability), but also a lack of integration of two key dimensions; that is, empowerment and participation, during various phases of the pilot intervention. These results show that the professional development program is associated with the adoption of a pilot intervention integrating multiple but not all dimensions of health promotion. We make recommendations to facilitate a more complete integration. This research also shows that the Guichard and Ridde grid proves to be a thorough instrument to document the practices of participants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.080
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0800.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.015
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0020.019
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.515
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.031 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion InternationalSame topicCommunity Health and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207