Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Health Organization's Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion has been influential in guiding the development of 'settings' based health promotion. Over the past decade, settings such as schools have flourished and there has been a considerable amount of academic literature produced, including theoretical papers, descriptive studies and evaluations. However, despite its central importance, the health-promoting general practice has received little attention. This paper discusses: the significance of this setting for health promotion; how a health promoting general practice can be created; effective health promotion approaches; the nursing contribution; and some challenges that need to be resolved. In order to become a health promoting general practice, the staff must undertake a commitment to fulfil the following conditions: create a healthy working environment; integrate health promotion into practice activities; and establish alliances with other relevant institutions and groups within the community. The health promoting general practice is the gold standard for health promotion. Settings that have developed have had the support of local, national and European networks. Similar assistance and advocacy will be needed in general practice. This paper recommends that a series of rigorously evaluated, high-quality pilot sites need to be established to identify and address potential difficulties, and to ensure that this innovative approach yields tangible health benefits for local communities. It also suggests that government support is critical to the future development of health promoting general practices. This will be needed both directly and in relation to the capacity and resourcing of public health in general.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.011 |
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".