Is the Ottawa Charter still relevant? A survey among health promotion practitioners and researchers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion is celebrating its thirtieth anniversary this year stimulating discussion regarding the guiding principles of the Ottawa Charter and the progress of health promotion. This study explores the opinions of health promotion researchers and practitioners on the current relevance and application of health promotion principles based on the Ottawa Charter. Methods An invitation to survey participation was sent to members of the EUPHA Health Promotion Section. A total of 86 members (63% females) from 26 European countries plus Israel, Australia and USA responded. Demographic and professional information was collected and responses addressed the relevance, strengths and weaknesses of health promotion. Respondents rated the use of the five action areas of the Ottawa Charter in their country and open questions explored the reasons for various ratings. Results 47% of respondents stated that health promotion is well developed in their country and 56% of participants declared the same for Europe. 76% of respondents felt that overall knowledge of health promotion has somewhat progressed, but 83% felt that health promotion is due for a deeper reflection. The percentage of use (regularly/very often) of the five action areas in onés country was rated highest for “Developing Personal Skills and Knowledge” at 62%, followed by “Developing Healthy Public Policy” at 47%, and lowest for “Reorientation of Health Services” with 26%. Health promotion was rated as a necessary field by 89% of respondents. Conclusions Though the majority of respondents believed health promotion is a necessary field, a similarly high amount felt that health promotion is in need of deeper reflection. Strategies to apply the five action areas in various countries 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 | 0.017 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".