Leveraging Ottawa Charter strategies to enhance COVID-19 vaccination: A systematic review of global health promotion approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite global vaccination efforts, many countries struggled to achieve sufficient COVID-19 vaccination coverage. The use of Ottawa Charter health promotion strategies in vaccination programs not only enhances coverage but also fosters sustainable public health outcomes. This systematic review aims to identify actionable strategies to improve vaccination efforts. Methods: This systematic review involved a comprehensive literature search across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase, targeting studies published between January 2020 and August 2024. The search focused on government-led health promotion strategies for enhancing COVID-19 vaccination rates. Strategies were categorized five main areas of the Ottawa Charter for health promotion. Results: A total of 22 health promotion strategies were identified globally, categorized into five key areas based on the Ottawa Charter for health promotion. Notable strategies included engaging community, addressing misinformation, expanding vaccination sites, and providing culturally tailored communication. Conclusion: The findings underscore the significance of utilizing the Ottawa Charter framework to design inclusive and adaptable public health strategies that ensure equitable vaccination coverage globally.
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 | 0.016 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".