Value and direction of Health Promotion in Korea: A content analysis of Health Plan 2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to examine the value and direction of health promotion in South Korea as Health Plan 2020 proceeds to 2030. Methods: We conducted a full-text content analysis of Health Plan 2020 and its evaluation reports for the plans and implementation of health promotion programs in public health. We used the five strategies of the Bangkok Charter and the five action areas of the Ottawa Charter as the analytic framework. Results: South Korea’s health promotion projects in public health are still centered on individual behavior changes. Capacity building and personal skill development were common strategies employed by half of the 247 health promotion projects. Policy-level approaches were limited to the efforts in the health sector. The aforementioned tendencies were reflected in that “education” and “promotion” were the frequent terms in the Health Plans and their evaluation reports, while the terms “ecological” and “multilevel” did not appear as much. Conclusion: Health promotion in South Korea needs to reinforce multilevel approaches. Such attempts should aim to address the social determinants of health in cooperation with other sectors. The Ottawa Charter still offers valid and fundamental guidelines for planning and evaluating health promotion.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".