MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990726965 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckz187.105

Empowerment: a key to promote the health of people with disabilities

2019· article· en· W2990726965 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stéphane Lafitte, Christine Ferron, L Mussillier, Silvia Poli, C L’Horset, M Masrouby, L Bidaux, Fadhlina Alias

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, Medicine and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic relationsEmpowermentCharterPopulationHealth careNursingHealth promotionSocial WelfareIntervention (counseling)SociologyPolitical sciencePsychologyMedicinePublic healthLawEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In France, health public policies for people with disabilities are based on specific laws, recommendations and systems of reference. This population is under the responsibility of the medico-social sector, which governs specialized institutions and services. These services favor a medical approach to health focused on access to care. Their main missions are to take care of disabled people with kindness on a daily basis and to adapt the care to each person’s special needs, whatever the disability. They create links with families, organize the services offered and the living environments, administer their staff and collaborate with health professionals. As they ensure safety and health at all levels, from every individual project to collective life, they have a real opportunity to act on a set of health determinants. The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion refers to the empowerment and participation of the population as fundamental principles; this is also true as far as people with disabilities are concerned. With the principal stakeholders on a national level, we wrote a handbook in order to support the implementation of these principles in medico-social institutions and services: ’Promoting health and well-being in the medico-social field in cooperation with people with disabilities” and their families. In this presentation, based on concrete examples, we will outline how the five intervention strategies of the Ottawa Charter can apply to people with disabilities, their families and their communities, especially inside specialized institutions and services. We will pay particular attention to the intervention methods and pedagogical tools which can be used to initiate or to improve the participation of disabled people in decisions, through the valuing of their experiential expertise, the development of their social skills, the strengthening of their health literacy, family-professional co-education, and cooperative strategies. Key messages Specialized institutions and services can promote the health of the people with disabilities they care for, by acting on the determinants of their health and by mobilizing participatory strategies. To strengthen disabled people’s participation, using their experiential expertise, developing their social skills and health literacy, and mobilizing co-education, are the best strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.022
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0010.019
Research integrity0.0060.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public HealthSame topicHealth, Medicine and SocietyFrench-language works237,207