Conducting a rapid health promotion audit in suburban Adelaide, South Australia: Can it contribute to revitalising health promotion?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ISSUES ADDRESSED: How health promotion is implemented varies and it is often not clear what activities are in place in a region. Understanding the extent of health promotion activities helps planning activities. METHODS: This research involved a rapid audit of the types of health promotion activities in a suburban region of South Australia. This analysis was guided by the WHO Ottawa Charter's principles. To better understand population needs and which health promoting activities may help, an epidemiological, demographic and social determinants of health profile of southern Adelaide described disease patterns and health inequities. RESULTS: While there was evidence of a range of health promoting activities, most concerned individual or behavioural services. A key finding was the small number of activities that the state health department and local health system were responsible for. Alongside local government, NGOs provided the bulk of health promotion activities. In addition, there were no overarching health promotion strategies or coordinating bodies to evaluate the activities. The epidemiological, demographic and social determinants of health profile found persistent health and social inequities. CONCLUSION: This rapid audit of health promotion in a region enabled a quick assessment of the current health promotion situation and provided evidence of gaps and areas where policy change should be advocated. SO WHAT?: The key findings distilled from this research were designed to inform policy priorities to shift health promotion in southern Adelaide onto a trajectory consistent with the Ottawa Charter and prevent further focus on individualised behaviour change strategies known as 'lifestyle drift'.
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 | 0.017 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".