Práticas de promoção da saúde e desafios em Moçambique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mocambique adoptou o conceito de promocao da saude desde a Declaracao de Alma Ata, em 1978. Foi um dos paises que assinou o compromisso de promocao da saude durante a Conferencia de Promocao da Saude em Ottawa em 1986. O objectivo deste artigo e analisar os principais pressupostos da promocao da saude em Mocambique. A metodologia optada consiste na revisao integrativa da literatura, usando sobremaneira de revistas academicas da Organizacao Mundial da Saude (OMS), do Ministerio da Saude (MISAU), das bases de dados Pubmed, Hinari, Scielo e de Jornais da Saude Africanos. Dos resultados obtidos, verificou-se que o Ministerio da Saude de Mocambique, em parceria com outras Organizacoes Nao-Governamentais (ONGs), esta implementando programas de promocao da saude que visam melhorar a qualidade de vida da populacao, atraves da criacao de ambientes favoraveis, desenvolvimento de habilidades pessoais, construcao de politicas publicas saudaveis, reorientacao dos servicos de saude e envolvimento comunitario. Conclui-se que, Mocambique esta a adoptar principios de promocao da saude desde o seu inicio, 1978, mas enfrenta varios desafios que incluem a falta de profissionais formados, recursos financeiros e materiais, infraestruturas deficientes e dificuldades na traducao de documentos escritos em lingua inglesa para o portugues. Palavras-chave: Promocao da saude; Educacao para Saude; Mocambique.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".