Health education teachers' views on supports and barriers to health education programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Health education (HE) is an integral component of supporting students' overall well-being. However, teachers have identified concerns related to teaching HE. To understand these concerns, this research examined multilevel supports and barriers to the implementation of HE. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected via an online survey (open-ended and closed-Likert scale questions) from 120 Canadian HE teachers. Findings Descriptive statistics analysis identified school administration, timetable/scheduling of HE, funding, resource availability, professional development opportunities, preparation time available, curricular preparation for other subjects, as both supports and barriers. Reflexive thematic analysis, on open-ended comments, determined supports and barriers on: (1) “how” HE is taught, (2) limited space or (home)room for HE and (3) unbalanced priority and value scale of school curricula. Originality/value Drawing on ecological systems theory and comprehensive school health frameworks, we offer insight into how existing barriers can be addressed and how existing support might inform future advocacy efforts to strengthen HE in schools.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".