MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3090831914 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckaa165.779

Applying “Acting Within Contexts” to intervention evaluation and equitable intervention design

2020· article· en· W3090831914 on OpenAlexaff
C Adam

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCégep du Vieux Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionVulnerability (computing)Agency (philosophy)Public healthIntervention (counseling)PovertyPsychologyPopulationGerontologyMedicineEnvironmental healthNursingPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract With the rise of chronic illness in the last century, notably diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and obesity, public health has worked to identify the causes of these diseases in order to develop effective interventions and improve population health. Research has shown that these chronic diseases are strongly linked to lifestyle-related risk factors such as smoking, poor eating habits, and physical inactivity. Based on this knowledge, public health interventions have focused on health information and education programs that target these lifestyle-related risk factors. However, these programs have been found to be ineffective because these lifestyle-related strategies do not take into account the contexts that influence behaviour change. This has been found to be particularly true for vulnerable populations who tend to live in contexts of poverty. We therefore asked: how do contexts of vulnerability influence the way people act in their daily lives? To address this question, findings from a qualitative project led to the development of the “Acting Within Contexts” framework. It is a system of five interrelated components (i.e. agency, resources, capacities, threats, and opportunities), which offers an analytical lens to better understand the influence of vulnerable contexts on how people carry out their daily actions. This presentation will first propose an explanation of the limits of public health interventions that aim to change behaviours. Secondly, based on the two previous presentations, it will present how “Acting Within Contexts” can be used: 1) to develop a better understanding of contexts in which vulnerable populations live, based on how the five components interact in people's lives to either hinder or facilitate their access to health; and 2) to design interventions that will shift the focus away from lifestyle-related risk factors, and rather, towards targeting the five components that make up people's everyday contexts.

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)0.305
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.253
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.305
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3050.253
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.016
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0050.014
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.234
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.149 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public Health→Same topicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology→French-language works237,207→