Aksi Promosi Kesehatan Puskesmas Untuk Pencegahan Merokok Di Dalam Rumah
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scientific evidence has determined that a safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) does not exist. Therefore, implementing 100 % smoke- free environments is the only effective way to protect the population from exposure to SHS. The Puskesmas Simomulyo has falling value of the no-smoking at home indicator in the last three years. \nThe descriptive study was conducted to analyze of health promotion actions of Puskesmas Simomulyo in smoking prevention at home in the renewal of strategies and actions recommended by WHO in the Ottawa Charter. This research is a qualitative study using a case study (single case) at the Puskesmas Simomulyo in Surabaya City in September to December 2019. Informants were determined through purposive sampling at 22 people consisting of 11 health center health workers, 4 headman/ informal community leaders, 1 head of disease control and eradication of the city health office, and 6 patients. Data collection used indepth interviews, document review, and observation. Data was transcribed, given codes and implemented themes. \nPuskesmas Simomulyo team's actions to prevent smoking inside the home in terms of the development of health policies were still less intensive and continuous. Actions related to the creation of the environment were still less focused on groups of smokers. Action related to strengthening community action and developing individual skills was still lacking because interventions had not been accompanied by theoretical studies and systematic planning. Reorientation actions were sufficient as indicated by the increasing trend of promotive and preventive services. \nHealth promotion for smoking preventions in the home requires efforts to change social norms that are acceptable to the community. Effort that can be Puskesmas implemented is the initiation of a smoke-free home.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.002 |
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".