Preparation, Participation and Impact (PPI): the best practice principles of Place-Based Approaches (PBAs)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Place-based approaches (PBAs) are becoming increasingly popular across government, public health research and practice to improve health and wellbeing in areas of poor health and disadvantage. As a relatively new approach, the literature on best practice for PBAs is emergent, and delivery methods are often diverse. We explored the essential key principles and considerations for best practice, with the aim of developing a framework for PBAs. Using Grounded Theory methodology, 23 interviews were conducted with participants from Australia, United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand. Purposive sampling was used to recruit community members, policymakers and funders, program officers, Aboriginal leaders and researchers. The data was analysed thematically. We identified three key principles of PBAs: Preparation, Participation and Impact (PPI) which are critical at all stages to reach the key outcomes of: 1. Understanding People and Place; 2. Connecting with Community; and 3. Shifting the System. At all times, the need to ensure that power is balanced is critical to fostering an inclusive engagement process. By following the principles outlined in this evidence-based framework, communities, funders and those involved in developing and delivering place-based programs can work together to address complex problems in a way that values the lived experience of community members and optimises the chances of achieving long-term health improvement.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".