Health Promotion and New Public Health. Comparative Study on Objective-Setting Public Health Policy. Historical Background and Path Dependence.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The historical background and the path dependence of objective-setting public health policy are described in this review. The New Public Health movement appeared in the 1980s and was inspired by the Ottawa Charter on Health Promotion. This movement is based on the idea that public health is mostly promoted by creating a supportive environment for health as well as by individual efforts toward a healthy life style. The first objective-setting public health policy called Healthy People was proposed in USA, 1979, under the influence of The Lalonde Report published in Canada, 1974. Goals and targets were set in order to reduce the mortality of American people. This project led to Healthy People 2000 and Healthy People 2010. In the 1990s, objective-setting public health policies prevailed in Western countries, such as United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and also in Japan. The objective-setting public health policy is the application of the management by objectives in the health policy domain. This policy is especially accepted in Anglo-Saxon countries where public sector reform was conducted on the basis of the New Public Management theory in the 1980s, which is when the WHO Regional Office for Europe started the Healthy Cities project that emphasized a network of project cities. The Health 21 in 1999 is another model of object-setting public health policy. A comparative study of four different objective-setting public health policies (USA, United Kingdom, WHO Regional Office for Europe, and Japan) was conducted regarding the goals and domains of the targets, methods of targeting, and evaluation of the project. The goals were almost identical in the four public health policies, while the domains of the targets were different. These differences were explained by the past experience of public health policy development in each country.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".