Twenty years of capacity building and partnership: A case study of a health promotion scholarship program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ISSUE ADDRESSED: Building health promotion workforce capacity and infrastructure is critical to ensure a strong evidence base for effective interventions, sustainability and ultimately positive health outcomes for the community. Accordingly, there is a need to build workforce capacity by providing pathways into the health promotion sector with opportunities for core health promotion competency development. Currently, there is a lack of transition programs and graduate-specific positions in health promotion. METHODS: This study presents a descriptive case study of a 20-year health promotion scholarships program administered by the Australian Health Promotion Association (WA Branch) and Healthway for health promotion graduates and Aboriginal health workers. Scholarship recipients and supervisors reported on demographics, projects and perspectives on the value of participating in the program. RESULTS: More than 2 million dollars has been invested to provide health promotion career pathways in WA via 100 scholarships. Key themes relating to program value included as follows: practical application of theoretical concepts; reciprocity; and building skills and capacity in both recipients and supervisors. CONCLUSIONS: The scholarships program results in a number of benefits to the recipient, host organisation and the overall health promotion sector and is an example of long-term investment to build health promotion capacity with potential for replication. SO WHAT?: Investment in competency-driven health promotion scholarships to create dedicated health promotion career pathways for new practitioners contributes to the capacity of an effective health promotion workforce.
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 | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".