Health promotion in multidisciplinary residency: Contributions to the training process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approaching the knowledge of professionals of a multidisciplinary residency program in health contributes to the reflection and analysis of knowledge, with reflexes in the structuring of educational responses aimed at strengthening the effective movement of health promotion in this training modality. This study aimed to understand the knowledge that professionals in a multidisciplinary residency have about health promotion and know the perceptions that they have about the contributions of the residency training process for health promotion practices. This is an exploratory study with qualitative approach, carried out in the context of Integrated Health Residency Program of the School of Public Health of Ceará-ESP-EC, Ceará State, Brazil. Sixteen professionals who had been trained in the program were interviewed. Data from interviews were organized according to content analysis technique and with the support of ATLAS.ti software. Two categories were raised: 1) Health promotion: from information to empowerment; and 2) Multiple training moments: contributions to health promotion practices in Multidisciplinary Residency in Health. The knowledge of residents, inferred from the speeches, sometimes assumed a posture congruent with the theoretical-conceptual international principles of health promotion, strengthening its effectiveness in the country through the Multidisciplinary Residency in Health as a training modality, and sometimes revealed features still related only to the prevention of diseases. Residents demonstrated to be aware of the need to overcome the hegemonic model that considers health professionals as the sole holders of knowledge.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".