Schulische Gesundheitsförderung von Ottawa bis heute: Chancen und Herausforderungen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A look back at the now 30-year history of school health promotion in Germany reveals lines of development that are helpful in understanding the past and that open the view for future opportunities and challenges. In this article, school health promotion will be considered from three perspectives: as a field of practice, a field of research, and a field of policy.In the practice field, health promotion in schools is confronted with a situation characterized by long-standing restrictions that have been imposed on students, teachers, and heads of schools. These measures are many and varied, but three forms of implementation that have developed from common roots can be identified: (a) behavioural approach, (b) health promoting school, and (c) good healthy school. "Health literacy" and the "health literate school" represent recent developments. In the research field, it is apparent that opportunities for evaluation are often underutilized, but in settings-based approaches they also face significant hurdles. However, in questions of dissemination and implementation strategies, which are further important research fields, clear progress has been made. In the policy field, important milestones have been set with the Preventive Care Act of 2015, the prevention guideline of the GKV (National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds), the recommendations of the KMK 2012 (Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs), and with the concept of the DGUV (German Social Accident Insurance) in 2013. School legislation of the federal states and the quality concepts of good schools show how health management can be linked with the educational quality management in schools.In conclusion, it is evident that a framework for school health promotion that would guide and link theory-based research and practice is still lacking.
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 | 0.028 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.036 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 0.032 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".