[The "health promotion" approach, a strategic alternative to teenagers' health in the Democratic Republic of Congo?].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes a review of the possibilities of improving HIV/AIDS prevention and reproductive health of teenagers and adolescents in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). This approach was based on compilation of institutional, political, legislative and national strategy data. The document review was completed by information collected from 15 key informants and by direct observation of the work of peer educators and community workers, allowing evaluation of the possibilities of development of the priority domains of the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion in young adolescents. Health promotion interventions for adolescents are globally ensured institutionally by three specialized programmes of the Ministry of Health, in collaboration with numerous national and international partners. Organized operationally outside of the primary health care circuit, strategic actions are more specifically directed towards acquisition of knowledge than individual skills by means of IEC (information, education and communication) and (BCC) (behaviour change communication) approaches, but with disappointing results. Although traces of these five priority domains of the Ottawa Charter are perceptible in the national response to the health problems of adolescents, the work of the various actors is not coordinated and organized in compliance with health promotion guidelines. The training of health workers appears to be a major determinant to structure this response around a dynamic federating the actions of all stakeholders to orient them towards the options of the health promotion approach.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".