MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2530517561 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckw194

The Vienna Declaration on Public Health

2016· editorial· en· W2530517561 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Martin McKee, David Stückler, Dineke Zeegers Paget, Thomas E. Dorner

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2016
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharterHealth promotionPublic healthPolitical scienceDeclarationGlobal healthHealth policyInternational healthEmpowermentPublic relationsPublic administrationMedicineNursingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1986 participants at the First International Conference on Health Promotion agreed the landmark Ottawa Charter. The Charter was a powerful response to calls for a new public health movement, setting out a vision and framework for actions to achieve the World Health Organization’s ‘Health for All’ targets by the year 2000 and beyond. It provided the foundation for many subsequent developments, including health in all policies, action on the built environment, community action and empowerment, an emphasis on prevention, and a focus on health equity. Today the principles of the Ottawa Charter remain as important as ever. Yet the world in 2016 is very different from that in 1986, and so too have the risks and opportunities for public health. In recognition of these changes, and taking account of other developments such as the 2016 World Federation of Public Health Association’s Global Charter on the Public’s Health,1 the European Public Health Association and its partners have examined how the principles set out in the Ottawa Charter apply to these new circumstances. The resulting Vienna Declaration (online supplement) has been adopted at the 2016 European Public Conference in Vienna, Austria. The changing context that the Vienna Declaration responds to is due, in large part, to what is termed ‘globalisation’, involving the movement of people, goods, money, and ideas over ever greater distances on a dramatic scale. This has brought many opportunities. Economic development, technological progress, especially in relation to health care, and the widespread adoption of healthy, evidence-based public policies have together contributed to large reductions in the global burden of disease, itself vastly better understood than in 1986 as a result of global collaboration, with concomitant increases in life expectancy.2 Yet globalisation has also brought new challenges to health. Thus, the damage we are doing to our planet is now indisputable, with the most recent data suggesting that man-made climate change may be reaching a point of no return. Natural resources are exploited with little concern for the environmental damage caused or how conflicts over water, oil, diamonds and other commodities hinder societal development.3 In the years since the Ottawa Charter, advanced industrialised nations have placed excessive focus on the pursuit of free market principles with insufficient attention given to health and societal well-being or investment in public goods. As a result, wealth and power is increasingly concentrated in the hands of ever fewer individuals and transnational corporations. These policies have had far reaching effects worldwide,4 reinforced by the policies adopted by global financial institutions.5 Labour regimes are driving down wages and working conditions of those in rich countries while migration depletes essential human resources from poor countries. Widening financial, educational and health inequalities, within and among countries, threaten peace and social cohesion. This situation is now unsustainable. Humanity faces a number of existential threats, many of them interconnected. Global temperatures fuelled by man-made climate change continue to break records, contributing to droughts, famines, floods and other natural disasters. Unprecedented numbers of people are on the move,6 some within countries as part of an accelerating process of urbanisation or, in some cases, because they have been displaced by conflict, but with many now moving to other countries, fleeing poverty, exploitation, and war, in some cases as a result of climate-change induced disasters. Increased movement of goods and people, coupled with inadequate systems of governance, have facilitated the emergence and spread of new infectious diseases, including antimicrobial resistance. The proliferation of weapons, whether in the hands of those determined to uphold a right to bear arms, extremist groups seeking to impose their religion or ideology by force, or the acquisition of nuclear weapons by unstable regimes have all made the world a much less safe place. The asymmetry of power between global forces and powerful individuals on the one hand and local communities renders the call, in the Ottawa Charter, for ‘empowerment of communities - their ownership and control of their own endeavours and destinies’ no more than an aspiration that, for many, seems further out of reach than ever. It is this challenge that the Vienna Declaration seeks to address. The Vienna Declaration sees information as a means to give voice to the weak and to make the invisible visible. It argues that no-one should be born, live or die without it being recorded, but also that information systems should support and not undermine human rights and measures to reduce inequalities. It places a duty on the public health community to advocate for change, engaging with many stakeholders, working with those who support public health but exposing and confronting the tactics of those who oppose it. It promotes good governance, including mechanisms to hold governments and others to account for their obligations to improve health. And it highlights the need to build capacity, including researchers, practitioners, and information systems, that can make this happen. Key points The 1986 Ottawa Charter has proven a solid basis for 3 decades of health promotion The 2016 Vienna Declaration takes its principles forward in the context of a changing world

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.014
Scholarly communication0.0170.010
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0280.047
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.012

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.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public HealthSame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207