Health promotion in Australia: An empirical study into the approaches adopted and evidence used by practitioners in their practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Health promotion is commonly defined as “the process of enabling people to increase control over, and to improve, their health”. This definition was originally found in the Ottawa Charter, which was written in 1986 and has been widely considered to be the founding document for health promotion practice. The existing health promotion literature suggests that practitioners have strong commitments to the values and principles presented in the Ottawa Charter and other iconic documents, but their practice contexts may not support the translation and implementation of those values and principles. We currently lack an empirical understanding of how the values and principles underpinning health promotion are conceptualised by practitioners and translated into practice. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted with health promotion practitioners in New South Wales, Australia. 58 semi-structured interviews and 250 hours of participant and non-participant observation were conducted with 54 practitioners. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and field notes were written during the observations; these were analysed thematically. Results: Health promotion practitioners were committed to improving people’s health effectively and fairly and, to achieve this, worked iteratively between providing people with opportunities for healthy living and enabling them to use the opportunities available to them, concentrating on disadvantaged communities. Practitioners were also committed to evidence-based practice and used different types of evidence for different practical and strategic purposes. Their ideal evidence met both substantive and procedural criteria for evaluating evidence and was primarily generated by practitioners because they found it to be the most useful and relevant to their practice. However, this evidence was lacking in the current evidence base and was not often valued by the system they worked in. Conclusion: This thesis describes practitioners’ conceptualisation of health promotion and how it is translated into their day-to-day practice. It also clarifies the way evidence is valued and used by practitioners, and offers an empirically-based contribution to the ongoing discussions on what and how evidence should be used to guide health promotion practice.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".