Context and the mechanisms in intersectoral school-based health promotion interventions: A critical interpretative synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: School-based health promotion interventions (SHPI) have been introduced extensively over the last decades, but their implementation and evaluation still present challenges. Among these, the complexity of the environments in which SHPI are implemented, and intersectoral collaboration to promote more sustainable change, must be better addressed within evaluation processes. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to (1) identify pertinent scientific literature on the implementation processes for intersectoral SHPI and (2) develop a programme theory that maps potential elements of context and underlying mechanisms that may influence intersectoral SHPI. Method: A critical interpretative synthesis was performed of elements of context and underlying situational and transformational mechanisms. These were identified based on the scientific literature published between 1997 and 2017 addressing intersectoral SHPI. Results: Six potential elements of context, seven potential situational mechanisms and seven potential transformational mechanisms that can explain SHPI outcomes were identified from 28 articles. The results were integrated into a framework to pinpoint elements that facilitate or impede intersectoral SHPI implementation. Conclusion: The results of this synthesis support a more comprehensive approach to evaluating SHPI, and improved consideration of intersectoral collaboration and the complexity associated with this type of intervention.
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 | 0.129 | 0.154 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".