Evaluation of a health promoting schools program in a school board in Nova Scotia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Health promoting schools (HPS) approach aims to make schools a healthy place through a holistic approach that promotes a supportive 'school ethos' and emphasizes improvements in physical, social, and emotional well-being and educational outcomes. A HPS initiative in rural Nova Scotia (Canada) provided an opportunity for a population-level natural experiment. This study investigated student well-being and health behaviours between schools with and without HPS implementation and schools with high and low school ethos scores. Student well-being, nutrition, and physical activity were examined in a cross-sectional survey of elementary students in Nova Scotia, Canada in 2014. Multiple regression was used to assess the relationship with student well-being using the Quality of Life in School (QoLS) instrument and health behaviours. The main exposure was attending one of the 10 HPS schools; secondary exposure was the school ethos score. The overall QoLS score and its subdomain scores in the adjusted models were higher in students attending HPS schools compared to those in non-HPS schools, but the differences were not statistically significant and the effect sizes were small. Students in schools that scored high on school ethos score had higher scores for the QoLS and its subdomains, but the difference was only significant for the teacher-student relationship domain. Although this study did not find significant differences between HPS and non-HPS schools, our results highlight the complexity of evaluating HPS effects in the real world. The findings suggest a potential role of a supportive school ethos for student well-being in school.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".