Producing and using community health education films in low- and middle-income countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To analyse the production and use of health education films in Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia. Design: Review of community health education films and their use by three partner organisations. Methods: A focused content analysis of 18 community health education films was conducted, and three exemplar films were selected for more detailed review. Interviews were carried out with four film production personnel and seven project workers using the films in health education projects in Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia. Concepts drawn from the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion and Anchored Instruction informed the study. Findings: The films, produced primarily for use across sub-Saharan Africa, mostly conveyed biological information and addressed behavioural issues related to maternal and child health topics. The predominantly low-literacy audiences reached by the projects may further benefit from localised content highlighting the social determinants of health through engaging narrative formats. While the health education projects provided some opportunities to discuss the films after screening, linked problem-solving activities could raise awareness of the multiple factors influencing health and help community members formulate holistic action plans. Conclusion: The film production company responded to emerging findings, noting that more context-specific films should be produced, with community members being more fully involved in planning, production and evaluation. Such an approach could generate more relevant content and engage audiences more effectively in problem-solving related to health and wellbeing.
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 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".