Applying the Ottawa Charter to inform health promotion programme design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is evidence of a correlation between adoption of the Ottawa Charter's framework of five action areas and health promotion programme effectiveness, but the Charter's framework has not been as fully implemented as hoped, nor is generally used by formal programme design models. In response, we aimed to translate the Charter's framework into a method to inform programme design. Our resulting design process uses detailed definitions of the Charter's action areas and evidence of predicted effectiveness to prompt greater consideration and use of the Charter's framework. We piloted the process by applying it to the design of four programmes of the Healthy Children's Initiative in New South Wales, Australia; refined the criteria via consensus; and made consensus decisions on the extent to which programme designs reflected the Charter's framework. The design process has broad potential applicability to health promotion programmes; facilitating greater use of the Ottawa Charter framework, which evidence indicates can increase programme effectiveness.
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 | 0.355 | 0.396 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".