Using Digital Platforms in Schools for Prevention and Health Promotion: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Digital platforms for prevention and health promotion (PHP) are now, more than ever, available for use by school professionals, including teachers. However, little is known about what motivates them to use such platforms. A scoping review (ScR) was conducted to identify conditions that promote use by school professionals, including teachers, of PHP digital platforms at schools. Methods: For our ScR, we accessed ERIC, Sociological Abstracts, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases (period 2000-2018) in 3 sectors: education, health, online technologies. For each study, we prepared and validated a summary sheet. Contents dealing with conditions for use were subjected to open coding, grouped into categories, and synthesized. Results: Of the 3639 articles captured, 17 studies were selected. Five conditions emerged: (1) ensuring that the digital platform becomes a reference for PHP activity in schools; (2) that the resources needed for its uptake are mobilized; (3) that it is user-friendly; (4) that the digital platform engages the participation of everyone involved; and (5) that it is linked to existing programs in the school. Conclusions: These results can guide the activities deployed in schools for optimal implementation of PHP programs from digital platforms.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".