Indices and Indicators Developed to Evaluate the “Strengthening Community Actions” Mechanism of the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion: A Scoping Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To determine 1) the indexes/indicators used for evaluating the “strengthening community actions” mechanism of the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion and 2) to extract the characteristics and key components of the indexes/indicators using a scoping review. Data Source:In May 2020, the search was conducted across three databases: Medline (via PubMed), Embase, and Scopus. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: All primary studies relating to development, identification, and measurement of health promotion indices/indicators associated to the “strengthening community actions” were included. The review articles were excluded. Data Extraction The data were extracted to a data-charting form that was developed by the research team. Two authors reviewed the extracted data. Data Synthesis To summarize and report the data, a descriptive numerical analysis and a narrative descriptive synthesizing approach were used. Results In total, 93 study articles were included. A majority of studies (82%) were conducted in developed countries. Different types of recognized indices were categorized into seven groups: social cohesion (n = 3), community capacity (n = 1), community participation (n = 7), social capital (n = 6), social network (n = 3), social support (n = 1), and others (n = 5). Conclusions Having a collection of “strengthening community actions” indices/indicators in hand, health policymakers and health promotion specialists might be able to do their best in considering, selecting, and applying the most appropriate indices/indicators while evaluating community health promotion interventions in different settings.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it