Embedding Child Health Promotion and Preventive Care Within Primary Health Care: From Agenda to Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Introduction Embedding behaviours that support adequate sleep, a nutritious diet, sufficient physical activity and reduced sedentary time are key health promotion and preventive care goals to support childhood growth, health and development. In Australia, the National Action Plan for the Health of Children and Young People 2020–2030, the National Preventive Health Strategy 2021–2030 and Australia's Primary Health Care 10 Year Plan 2022–2032 all support a stronger health system focused on promoting wellbeing [1, 2, 3] as well as treating illness. Maternal, Child and Family Health Nurses (MCFHNs) and general practitioners (GPs) are amongst the most commonly consulted Primary Health Care (PHC) providers for Australian children [4]. Furthermore, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Practitioners are also important providers of PHC to First Nations children. Health promotion and the provision of preventive care are critical components of MCFHNs', GPs' and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Practitioners' scope of practice [5, 6, 7, 8]. Additionally, Australian MCFHNs and GPs acknowledge the important role of paediatric health promotion and preventive care activities in their service setting [9, 10, 11]. However, day‐to‐day practice may not reflect these ambitions adequately due to challenges faced by PHC practitioners. These include a lack of adequate time available in consultations, gaps in education and training and the sensitivity of topics such as body weight [9, 10, 12]. Thus, despite being one of five key actions of the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion [13], the reorientation of health services towards health promotion remains an aspirational target across PHC in Australia. Indeed, global progress towards health service reorientation has been disappointing [14]. Nevertheless, there is reason for cautious optimism as policy momentum towards change continues to grow in Australia. At a state and territory level, work is currently underway to embed a health promotion and preventive focus into relevant policy and practice. In South Australia, the Preventive Health SA Bill was passed in November 2024, supporting the continued work of an agency dedicated to preventive health [15]. In Queensland, Health and Wellbeing Queensland is developing a Clinical Prevention Framework intended to support prevention within their health system [16]. Additionally, two prevention‐focused clinical practice guidelines directly relevant to PHC were updated in 2024: Guidelines for preventive activities in general practice [5] and the National guide to preventive healthcare for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people [17]. Specific to overweight and obesity, the National Obesity Strategy 2022–2032 [18] was released in 2022. This recent wave of policy changes and updates offers an exciting window of opportunity to actively strengthen the implementation of health promotion and preventive care across PHC. We—the authors—are a group of early‐career researchers each leading research programmes exploring health promotion and preventive care in Australian PHC settings. Through our research, we all seek to positively impact the health of Australian children. In addition, we are all registered healthcare practitioners (dietitians [DD, EH], GP registrar [KW] and public health physician [MG]) with practical, real‐world experience. Thus, in this Commentary, we combine our practical experience and academic knowledge with contemporary research to articulate how PHC in Australia can be supported to reorientate services towards a more health‐promoting approach, referencing the Ottawa Charter to outline our thoughts. Finally, given their prominent role in paediatric health provision in Australia, this Commentary mainly focuses on MCFHNs and GPs.
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 | 0.050 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.035 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".