Meeting in Vienna 30 years after Ottawa: QuoVadis health promotion?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The complementary approach brought by the Ottawa declaration 30 years ago, emphasized that curative, palliative and preventive discourses and practices needed to work hand in hand with Health Promotion (HP). This study explores experts and practitioners opinions on the current trends that HP faces in Portugal, a European peripheral country. Methods The invitation to participate in a survey followed by a focus group was sent to several health stakeholders (e.g. community intervention (Healthy Cities Network), policy making (DGS-Health Directorate of Portugal)). A mix of qualitative and quantitative methods screened data provided by a total of 32 participants (81% females). Demographic information, experiences or professional domain, questions related to the relevance, strengths and weaknesses of HP, and open questions explored the reasons for several ratings. Results Only 22% of respondents stated that HP is well developed (with 6% fully agreeing). 31% of respondents (25% fully agreeing) felt that overall knowledge of HP has progressed, and the majority (80% fully agreeing) felt that health promotion needs a deeper reflection since Ottawa. felt that health promotion needs a deeper reflection since Ottawa. Regarding the five HP action areas, the percentage of use (regularly/very often) was rated highest for “Developing Healthy Public Policy” at 28%, “Reorientation of Health Services” with a total of 25%. “Developing Personal Skills and Knowledge” with 25%, followed by “Supportive Environments” with 19% and “Community Action”, 12%. Conclusions Strong emphasis is given to the fact that HP is not well developed and needs a deeper reflection. Strategies to apply the five action areas may be beneficial.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.007 |
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".