Bibliographic record
Abstract
A transformative approach to maternal health promotion should be mother-centred, context-driven and grounded in lived experiences. Health promotion can achieve this by drawing on its disciplinary roots to extend and reorient maternal health promotion towards an approach of non-stigmatizing and equitable health promotion that has mothers' well-being at the centre, particularly giving credit to marginalized, 'non-normative' maternities. This article draws on data from 18 workshops EN conducted across Aotearoa New Zealand, including 268 maternal health stakeholders. Drawing on design thinking, participants reimagined what a maternal health promotion approach informed by the Ottawa Charter action areas could comprise. The five themes included building connected systems close to home, developing mothering/parenting skills, addressing upstream determinants, mother-centred care and funding, and creating a collective mothering village. We discuss how these areas could better meet the unique challenges of transitioning to motherhood. Rather than focussing only on individual behaviours, many ideas reveal broader environmental and structural determinants. We link the themes to current literature and advance the agenda for centring the maternal in maternal health promotion.
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 | 0.029 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".