HEALTH PROMOTION IN CARE FOR PEOPLE WITH CHRONIC NON-TRANSMITABLE DISEASE: INTEGRATIVE REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective: to analyze the health promotion practices developed by nurses in the care of people with non-transmittable chronic disease in primary health care, in scientific publications, between 2007 and 2017. Method: an integrative literature review of a qualitative approach, conducted in five databases, in which was read and critical analysis of the studies in order to know the practices of health promotion. Results: 40 articles were selected and organized according to the fields of the Ottawa Charter: public policies, reorientation of health services, creation of personal skills, reinforcement of community action and favorable environments. Thus, most of the experiments were mainly related to two fields of action: development of personal skills and reorientation of the health system. There is a movement towards the development of a health promotion in which the collective, the social determinants of health and multidisciplinarity are advocated. Conclusion: some limits were identified that need to be overcome, among which stands out the inter-sectoral work that needs to grow beyond the health sector.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".