Scoping review protocol to understand the conceptualisation, implementation and practices of health promotion within the context of primary healthcare in Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of health promotion in empowering and sustaining communities, as well as the need to build resilient health systems and work collectively with other sectors to protect and promote health. The WHO has mainstreamed health promotion in the Global health agenda. However, the definition and practices of health promotion in Africa are not well understood and documented, with often, an interchangeable use of the concept of health promotion and health prevention. This scoping review is to explore how health promotion is defined and practised in Africa and identify gaps in its implementation within the framework of the Ottawa Charter. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review will employ the approach described by Arksey and O'Malley in 2005. The approach consists of five stages: (1) formulating the research questions, (2) identifying relevant studies, (3) selecting eligible studies, (4) charting the data and (5) collating, summarising and reporting the results. This protocol employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). The review will apply the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews to present the results. The scoping review will adapt the five principles set forth in the Ottawa Charter to categorise the outcomes and uses its strategies to define the interventions. Data bases searched are Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, SCOPUS, CABI, JBI Evidence Synthesis and grey literature. The database last searched was January 2021. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not require ethics approval. Our dissemination strategy includes peer review publication, policy brief, presentation at conferences and relevant stakeholders.
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 | 0.185 | 0.177 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.158 | 0.039 |
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".