ANALISIS PROMOSI KESEHATAN BERDASARKAN OTTAWA CHARTER DI RS ONKOLOGI SURABAYA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health promotion in hospitals have a purpose to increase public knowledge by conducting, counseling, education and training, and strengthening humanresources to raise awareness, willingness and ability of people to live a clean and healthy. Health promotion in hospital can give the benefits to the hospitalnot only in phisically sides or currative phase. The purpose of writing this article isto discuss the implementation of health promotion efforts based on Ottawa Charter at Surabaya Oncology hospital. The method used in this research is descriptive qualitative approach by direct observation and indepth interview. The implementation of health promotion on Onkologi Surabaya Hospital based on the five point of strategy health promotion in Ottawa Charter which are health public policy, supportive enviroment, reorient health services, personal skill, and community action has been appropriate. This is evidenced by the availability of mediathat support the implementation of health promotion, policy and the establishmentthe committee of PKRS. Also there are an effort to make community development as well as improving the skills of the individual in maintaining the health of the healthyindividuals as well as improve the health of the sick patient. The implementation of health promotion in hospital hopefully can make the patien’s family can help the patien not to infect the others especially to the family and their close friend. It also can make the patien increase their quality of living. Suggestion for Onkologi Hospital Surabaya based on the results of this study is to improve the evaluation system by conducting an evaluation in accordance with the rules that have been applied for the implementation of health promotion in the hospital can grow and run regularly.Keyword: Health Promotion on Hospital, Ottawa Charter
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.001 |
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".