Definitions of positive health: a systematic scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An agreed definition, model, and indicators of positive health would contribute to a better understanding and wider use of the term, thus favoring the development of the positive health approach in public health. However, there is no consensus even on the definition of positive health. In this study, we systematically reviewed its definitions. We conducted a scoping review as per PRISMA guidelines. We queried the MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, and Web of Science databases. The PubMed search equation was: 'positive health' [Title/Abstract] AND ('health' [MeSH] OR 'health status' [MeSH] OR 'health status indicators' [MeSH]). Definitions of positive health referring to a 'one-dimensional' conceptualization of health are: (i) positive health as a state 'far beyond a mere absence of disease'; (ii) positive health as wellbeing; and those referring to a 'two-dimensional' conceptualization are (iii) positive health as resilience and (iv) positive health as (a reserve in) capacities. This work contributes to the refining of the salutogenic vocabulary. At this stage of the ongoing discussion on health promotion vocabulary, we propose the 'reserve in capacities' as the candidate for the definition of positive health.
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 | 0.093 | 0.246 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.052 | 0.037 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".