The politics of health promotion: channelling our anger and our hope for the wellbeing of people, place and planet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the Institute of Health Promotion and Education turning 60, it is timely to reflect on health promotion’s journey. While health promotion can celebrate many advances, much remains to be done. This paper considers the enormous challenges we face and how we might move forward by working not only within, but beyond, the five action areas of the Ottawa Charter: engaging creatively with the opportunities offered by the changing contexts in which we operate, for example in relation to integrated care systems and place-based partnerships; learning from our experience of COVID-19 to ensure joined-up whole system responses that nurture the transformative change necessary to ‘build back better’ for a sustainable and healthy future; and advocating a new economic vision and model that rejects economic growth as an end in itself and refutes the assumption that such growth will automatically result in improved population and planetary health. Health promotion is inherently political. Reflecting on the UK’s current situation – with spiralling child, food and fuel poverty, flatlined/reduced life expectancy, increased inequalities, and the ongoing failure of government to take on powerful vested interests through legislative, regulatory and fiscal measures – we face a crisis. However, a crisis represents not only danger, but also a potential turning point. This should motivate the health promotion workforce to harness and channel its righteous anger; and give space for active hope that we – as citizens, professionals and members of families and communities – can envision, advocate and fight to secure the wellbeing of people, places and the planet.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".