Systematic review of health promotion policies or regulations with CCAT theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the five Ottawa Charter's means of action is the concept of "healthy public policy," which is an approach to health promotion that is integrated with public policy. This concept can be used as an approach/method in solving health problems at the broader policy level and involving all sectors comprehensively, not just health promotion at the community level and the partial health sector, so that public health problems can be resolved properly. We conducted a systematic review of health promotion policies or regulations using CCAT theory. The purpose of this study is to find the state of the art of research related to stakeholder synergy in online game addiction prevention policies in adolescents. References and literature for this systematic review were collected from the Proquest, ScienceDirect, Pubmed, and Google Scholar databases. The search uses the boolean phrases "OR" and "AND." Keywords: policy or regulation, health promotion, and community coalition action theory. The results of the systematic review conducted by the researchers showed that of the twenty selected articles, three articles used the coalition/partnership dimension from the CCAT theory, four articles used the stakeholder dimension, two articles used the collaboration dimension, five articles discussed school health policies, policies related to gaming disorders. One article on the analysis of the juvenile contraceptive law, one article on the prevention of mental health disorders, one article on health promotion interventions, and two articles on risk factors and self-regulation focus on online gaming addiction in adolescents. This study concludes that in the future, further research is needed regarding health promotion policies to prevent online game addiction in adolescents to develop specific policy recommendations related to preventing online game addiction in adolescents.
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 | 0.161 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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; 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".