Multidisciplinarity in health promotion and the era of planetary health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In April 2019, the 23rd IUHPE World Conference on Health Promotion fostered the space for health promoters around the world to come together and discuss its theme: ‘Waiora: Promoting planetary health and sustainable development for all’ (IUHPE 2019). With this theme, the conference positioned dominant social and economic paradigms such as colonialism and neo-liberalism, and their role in exacerbating the unequal capacity of communities across the globe to promote their health, as one of the most urgent challenges of our generation. This discussion was framed within Māori knowledge and culture, which (simply put) privileges respectful and sustainable relationships with our natural environments. The expansion of the mandate of health promotion to include planetary health represents a new chapter in its constant re-definition within public health, and in the re-definition of the academic disciplines supporting it. Our paper, awarded with the inaugural Ilona Kickbusch award for Best Paper by an Early Career Academic, highlighted the nature of multidisciplinarity in health promotion, and debated the role of this key characteristic in the capacity of health promotion to survive as a distinct discipline within public health (Gagné et al., 2018). The renewed pledge by conference delegates to situate its mission on a global scale invites a new range of champions focussed on climate change, environmental justice, social development and traditional Indigenous knowledge and cultures. Most public health institutions, however, continue to thrive on legacy disciplines to understand the determinants of health and the means to secure them, thereby challenging the inclusion of the new disciplinary inputs needed to understand and tackle the modern commercial and political underpinnings of health inequities. We make the safe assumption that the debate on multidisciplinary—what it looks like and how it influences the growth of health promotion as a theoretical perspective, field of action and academic institution—is likely to endure in the new era of planetary health. To carry on the mandate of health promotion and ensure its longevity, health promoters need to continue advocating for health equity in the academic, policy and civic domains, and highlight its implications for non-Western countries and future generations. Health promoters also need to be reflexive and critical of their own practices and assumptions, and question their unintended impacts on health inequities across the globe. To accomplish this, we hope that health promoters continue participating in scientific platforms such as the IUHPE World conference and Health Promotion International that support the multidisciplinary nature of research and practice in health promotion. As early career researchers, we support this era by celebrating our disciplinary backgrounds and sources of knowledge, and working to support actions that promote the capacity of communities to develop themselves in a truly sustainable fashion.
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 | 0.025 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.043 | 0.045 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
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".