Participatory evaluation of the Alberta Healthy Communities Approach (AHCA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Alberta Healthy Communities Approach (AHCA) project aimed to strengthen supportive environments for cancer and chronic disease prevention in rural communities across Alberta. Approach: The Alberta Healthy Communities Approach (AHCA) is an evidence-based, participatory approach to creating supportive environments for health across key risk factors for cancer and chronic disease (e.g., healthy eating, mental health, UVR protection). In the AHCA project (209-2023), the Community Team in Cancer Prevention and Screening Innovation (CPSI), Alberta Health Services (AHS), collaborated with members from multi-sectoral teams (MSTs) across nineteen rural communities to implement and evaluate the AHCA. The MSTs included diverse representation from community-at-large, facilities and organizations, healthcare, schools, and workplaces. Using the AHCA five-step process, MSTs created connections; identified community strengths and capacity; co-created a shared vision and goal; and planned, implemented, and evaluated healthy community initiatives to address local priorities. Community surveys and assessments were developed and conducted by MSTs to determine the outcomes of their initiatives. Members of MSTs also participated in evaluation activities conducted by CPSI (e.g., focus groups, surveys) to contextualize findings and determine the overall impact and effectiveness of the AHCA in communities. Results: Despite facing challenges due to the COVID-9 pandemic, communities implemented 232 healthy community initiatives - including creating walking trails, building community gardens, and organizing cooking classes - with an estimated reach of over 72,000 community members. Pre-post assessments demonstrated statistically significant increases in community capacity in addition to improvements in supportive environments for health (i.e., social, physical, economic). Community surveys also indicated increased awareness of available resources and facilities, improved knowledge about healthy lifestyles, and adoption of healthy behaviors. Furthermore, MST members shared that the AHCA created new and strengthened existing relationships in their communities, supported investment in community, and reduced social isolation and mental health stigma. After the four-year project, most MSTs remain operational and have continued to maintain, enhance, and develop healthy community initiatives through the AHCA. Implications: By using a participatory approach, the AHCA project has demonstrated impact and effectiveness in strengthening community capacity and supportive environments for health. Building on the success of the AHCA in rural communities, CPSI is currently engaging urban communities in the AHCA process to develop, implement, and evaluate healthy community initiatives. In doing so, the AHCA Urban project will leverage lessons learned from the AHCA rural evaluation while adapting to a new context to increase reach and adoption. By combining community knowledge with rigorous research and evaluation, the AHCA is well-positioned to support community health and well-being for all Albertans.
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 | 0.218 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".