Applying the Ottawa Charter to inform health promotion programme design
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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 it