Sustainable development goals for health promotion: a critical frame analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) lay the foundations for supporting global health and international development work for the next 15 years. Thirty years ago, the Ottawa Charter defined health promotion and outlined key principles for global action on health, including the importance of advocating, enabling and mediating for health equity. Advocacy underscores a human right to health and suggests political action to support its attainment. Enabling speaks to health promotion's focus on the empowerment of people and communities to take control over their health and aspirations. Mediation draws attention to the critical intersectoral partnerships required to address health and social inequities. Underpinned by this approach, the aim of this paper is to consider how key health promotion principles, namely, rights, empowerment and partnership feature (and are framed) within the SDGs and to consider how these framings may shape future directions for health promotion. To that end, a critical frame analysis of the Transforming Our World document was conducted. The analysis interrogated varying uses and meanings of partnerships, empowerment and rights (and their connections) within the SDGs. The analysis here presents three framings from the SDGs: (1) a moral code for global action on (in)equity; (2) a future orientation to address global issues yet devoid of history; and (3) a reductionist framing of health as the absence of disease. These framings raise important questions about the underpinning values of the SDGs and pathways to health equity - offering both challenges and opportunities for defining the nature and scope of health promotion.
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 | 0.036 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".