Project for community actions and health promotion at primary healthcare centres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This work involves three institutions from different fields: academia (ECiS), public health (Dipsalut) and healthcare (Albera Salut, the institution which provides primary care services in the area of Peralada). We understand health promotion as the service for an individual/community which implements programmes and actions directed to give the necessary tools in order to understand and manage life and make sense of it, while strengthening skills for life and the competences of individuals to have greater control over their health and the factors influencing it; all this from a salutogenic perspective, which focuses on health, not disease. From this view, we have designed and implemented a health promotion programme together with those benefiting from it, who will decide on it and then take action. It’s based on two strategic lines: 1. with the community: motivating the community into becoming responsible for their own health and carrying out actions that favour health promotion. 2. at the health centre: Assist the professionals from Albera Salut with their work from the health promotion view. Working from this perspective allows taking into account three of the five recommendations by the Ottawa Charter (OMS, 1986): developing people’s skills for life, reorienting the service (reformulating primary care towards the community) and fostering community actions. Methods Participatory action research (PAR) is used to promote a reflexive process about the practice involving the participation of all the agents in order to reformulate it towards a specific goal (health promotion) and being able to improve it. Results We have been able to create and motivate a mixed group formed of different agents within the community (pharmacists, local authorities and community leaders), professionals from Albera Salut and two associations in the area. Work has been done while enabling coordination and connection with different agents within the community (health, social services) in order to promote the creation of community actions in an organised manner. This work also allows independent action by the community while fostering their empowerment. Conclusions We found that the above described model of health promotion, using participatory action research methods, gives the community the ability to gain more control over their health and the factors influencing it. Key messages Community's voice: using participatory methodologies applied to community health and health promotion Community empowerment and innovative health assistance from primary care services in a rural area
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 | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.004 |
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".