Availability of health-promoting interventions in high schools in Quebec, Canada, by school deprivation level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: School-based health-promoting interventions (HPIs) foster adolescent health and well-being. Access to HPIs may differ by the socioeconomic advantage of students at each school (school deprivation). We assessed the importance of health issues and availability of HPIs and extracurricular activities by school deprivation in high schools in Quebec, Canada. METHODS: In 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19, we interviewed school principals or a designee in 48 public high schools classified as disadvantaged (33%) or advantaged (67%). Schools rated whether 13 common health-related issues were important (i.e. warranted intervention) in their student population and reported whether HPIs to address these or other health issues and/or sports or special interest extracurricular activities had been available in the past year. RESULTS: 84% of disadvantaged schools offered one or more HPIs in the past year compared to 73% of advantaged schools. Higher proportions of disadvantaged schools perceived most of 13 health-related issues as important. HPIs for bullying/exclusion, sex education and physical activity (issues subject to government mandates) were available in most schools. Higher proportions of disadvantaged schools offered non-mandated HPIs (i.e. for healthy eating, mental health/well-being and substance use). Higher proportions of advantaged schools offered extracurricular activities in all areas other than non-competitive sports, which was offered by equal proportions of advantaged and disadvantaged schools. CONCLUSION: Government mandates appear to facilitate universal availability of HPIs in schools, possibly boosting equity in school-based health promotion. Further investigation of possible differences in the content, implementation and/or effects of HPIs based on school deprivation is warranted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".