Comparative study on school health promotion in Switzerland and Malaysia: qualitative evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The Ottawa Charter emphasized schools as a central location for health promotion. In particular, a holistic approach involving all members of a school and the school community is considered desirable for school health promotion (SHP). School principals are seen key players in SHP implementation, but little is known about how contextual factors such as the governance of health and education affect their roles. The project aims to study the governance mechanisms and contextual factors affecting SHP implementation in schools in two national contexts: in Malaysia and Switzerland. Methods 18 principals were interviewed in expert interviews. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed with MAXQDA using qualitative content analysis with deductive and inductive categories. Results Results indicate that there are significant differences in how Malaysia and Switzerland govern SHP. In Malaysia, there are clear structures and responsibilities for SHP. The health and education sectors work closely together, with top-down decision-making on a national level. In contrast, Switzerland has no governmental policy regarding SHP for schools with SHP organized mainly by NGOs. It appears that in Switzerland, decisions regarding SHP are made more bottom-up and at the local level, typically by municipalities. Malaysia has a very distributed leadership model, with a school leader specifically responsible for student affairs and SHP at each school. Enablers of SHP include clear structures and well-defined responsibilities, while a lack of time and staff are among the primary barriers to successful implementation. Conclusions The governance and policies of SHP are very different in Malaysia and Switzerland. Clear structures and high centralization in Malaysia are contrasted by very high autonomy and a federal structure in Switzerland. Advantages and disadvantages of these differences in educational governance will be discussed within the presentation.
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 | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".