MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220700606 · doi:10.1002/hpja.596

What constitutes health promotion innovation?

2022· letter· en· W4220700606 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
James A. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion Journal of Australia · 2022
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSchool Health and Nursing Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic relationsHealth promotionPopulation healthMedicinePromotion (chess)ScholarshipHealth policyPublic healthPolitical scienceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an effort to achieve the mission of the Health Promotion Journal of Australia to publish ‘high-quality research and critical perspectives from researchers, decision-makers and practitioners that contribute to improving knowledge and evidence for health promotion action across Australasia’, preference is given to articles presenting significant, innovative and/or useful findings from methodologically robust and cutting-edge qualitative and quantitative studies of health-promoting policies, strategies, programs and evaluations. Yet, as the Editor-in-Chief, I often find myself pondering whether the manuscripts submitted reflect health promotion innovation. I ask myself ‘do the contributions provide something new, different or unique for the health promotion community that builds on, or extends, the findings and conclusions of past scholarship?’. While innovation is embedded in the way the editorial team assess the relevance of submissions to our readership, it is a pretty fluid concept. It is as much subjective, as it is objective. Yet, the National Preventive Health Strategy (NPHS) states that ‘across Australia there are many examples of effective and innovative approaches to prevention’.1 (p. 42) I agree, but I also think that there is lots of ambiguity about what health promotion innovation constitutes. So…, I thought it could be useful to explore this concept a little further to help guide potential authors about what we mean by health promotion innovation, and why it is important for the journal, and subsequently for advancing the health promotion field. The term ‘innovation’ is most often defined as ‘the implementation of a new or significantly improved product (good or service) or process, a new marketing method or a new organisational method in business practices, workplace organisations or external relations’.2 While, the term innovation is frequently applied to a range of health and social contexts, it has its origins in the business sector. It is pleasing to see how this meaning of innovation has morphed into something different when viewed from a health (promotion) lens. To understand what I mean, it is first useful to return to what is meant by ‘health promotion’. The most recent Global Conference on Health Promotion referred to health promotion as ‘the process of enabling people to take control over and improve their health and its determinants’ consistent with historical definitions aligned to the Ottawa Charter.3 It also recognised that ‘health promotion is about creating the conditions and conducive environment for healthy choices for all and where people live, work, age and play’, which is also consistent with social determinants of health scholarship from the past two decades.3 So, one can reasonably assume, at least in broad terms, that the concept of ‘health promotion innovation’ equates to the development and implementation of new or improved health promotion programs, policies and systems that enable people to control their health and its determinants, including the conditions and environments in which they live, work, age and play. I think this a relatively fair assumption, but invite and encourage other health promotion students, practitioners, policy-makers and researchers, to provide alternative views through submissions to the Health Promotion Journal of Australia. That is, the concept of health promotion innovation is embedded in many facets of our work. As such, we should engage in a deeper consciousness about why this is important, and how health promotion innovation can be adopted to provide a more equitable and sustainable world. The National Health and Medical Research Council has established a Health Innovation Advisory Committee to drive this agenda in a health research context. Perhaps the Australia Health Promotion Association should do the same? Perhaps the concept of embracing health promotion innovation should be an explicit International Union for Health Promotion and Education (IUHPE) health promotion competency? For the interim, please reflect on what role you can play to drive a deeper understanding about health promotion innovation within the context in which you live, play, age and work. As we enter a new era of health promotion focused more explicitly on the well-being economy, it will be increasingly important to grapple with the concept of health promotion innovation. The recently developed Geneva Charter for Well-being has an explicit transformative and future focused well-being discourse that necessarily intersects with this agenda.4 An upcoming special issue of the Health Promotion Journal of Australia will be dedicated to this topic, so please consider submitting an article if you are working, or generating innovative evidence, in this space.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.301
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion Journal of AustraliaSame topicSchool Health and Nursing EducationFrench-language works237,207