MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3179995695 · doi:10.1111/phn.12941

Twenty years with the public health intervention wheel: Evidence for practice

2021· article· en· W3179995695 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marjorie A. Schaffer, Susan Strohschein, Kari Glavin

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Health Nursing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSchool Health and Nursing Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthPublic health nursingPsychological interventionEvidence-based practiceNursingPopulation healthPopulationMedicineRelevance (law)Intervention (counseling)ConvictionEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceAlternative medicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Public Health Intervention Wheel (PHI Wheel) is a population-based practice model for public health nursing practice that encompasses three levels of practice (community, systems, individual/family) and 17 public health interventions. This article shares the story of how the PHI Wheel was created, disseminated, implemented by public health nurses (PHNs) and educators across the globe, and updated with new evidence published in the second edition of Public Health Interventions: Applications for Public Health Nursing in 2019. Evidence on the relevance of PHI Wheel interventions for public health practice in cultural and international settings supports the model's value in explaining PHN practice. This article highlights the experiences of various countries with the PHI Wheel including Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The evidence update confirms the relevance of the model to PHN education and practice and reinforces the conviction that development of new evidence is essential for promoting population health.

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)0.087
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.239
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0870.239
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.013
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.316
GPT teacher head0.559
Teacher spread0.243 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations19
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Health NursingSame topicSchool Health and Nursing EducationFrench-language works237,207