MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399976969 · doi:10.3390/nu16131999

Health and Nutrition Promotion Programs in Papua New Guinea: A Scoping Review

2024· review· en· W4399976969 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Juliana Chen, Alyse Davies, Phyllis Tran, Ryley Gronau, Anna Rangan, Margaret Allman‐Farinelli, Shelina Porykali, Robin Oge, Bobby Porykali

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth promotionMedicineNon-communicable diseaseHealth careGlobal healthEnvironmental healthSustainabilityNursingBusinessPublic healthEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a rising prevalence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in Papua New Guinea (PNG), adding to the disease burden from communicable infectious diseases and thus increasing the burden on the healthcare system in a low-resource setting. The aim of this review was to identify health and nutrition promotion programs conducted in PNG and the enablers and barriers to these programs. Four electronic databases and grey literature were searched. Two reviewers completed screening and data extraction. This review included 23 papers evaluating 22 health and nutrition promotion programs, which focused on the Ottawa Charter action areas of developing personal skills (12 programs), reorienting health services (12 programs) and strengthening community action (6 programs). Nineteen programs targeted communicable diseases; two addressed NCDs, and one addressed health services. Enablers of health promotion programs in PNG included community involvement, cultural appropriateness, strong leadership, and the use of mobile health technologies for the decentralisation of health services. Barriers included limited resources and funding and a lack of central leadership to drive ongoing implementation. There is an urgent need for health and nutrition promotion programs targeting NCDs and their modifiable risk factors, as well as longitudinal study designs for the evaluation of long-term impact and program sustainability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.184
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207