Reflecting on community practice in health promotion in Europe - where now?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scope and rationale: This workshop will discuss contemporary issues around developing and sustaining community practice in health promotion in Europe. In 1986, the Ottawa Charter signified the importance of strengthening community action to health promotion. Health 2020 and many other international statements and reviews have since endorsed community empowerment as a core strategy for achieving better population health and reducing the health gap. Despite a shared vision, and an increasing evidence base to support practice, there are challenges for those wishing to build impactful community-centred approaches as an integral part of public health. If we are to sustain and empower resilient and healthy communities, then there is a need for honest reflection on what has been learnt so far, why we are some way from achieving genuinely people-centred health systems and where future directions lie. Objectives: The aim of this workshop is to stimulate discussion on the current ‘state of play’ of community-based health promotion practice in Europe. A key learning objective is for workshop participants to identify how health promotors can best work to support community-led action through planning, programme implementation and capacity building. A further objective is to set the first building blocks of a EUPHA network on the science of community engagement that would also collaborate with the Health Promotion section. Format: A skills building, interactive workshop with a focus on collaborative learning. Those attending will be encouraged to share learning about working within complex systems to build resilient and healthy communities and to reflect on practice within different contexts in Europe. Following an introduction and two brief presentations to stimulate thinking about the realities of community-centred prevention, delegates will be asked to consider key questions on programme theory, empowerment and evaluation: •How to deal with the nature of the properties of complex systems in our community practice and evaluation. •How to describe our actions in the field of community health and health promotion in ways that communicate programme theories and models to others and also that emancipate ourselves from a linear causality perspective. •How to ensure programmes are genuinely community-led and can support emerging community leaders. We will conclude with a summary of workshop themes and actions to take forward to strengthen community-based health promotion practice. An interactive workshop on contemporary issues for community-centred health promotion practice and evaluation Delegates will share learning on obstacles and solutions to building empowered and resilient communities and how to improve programme theory and evidence
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 | 0.087 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".