HEALTH PROMOTION IN SASKATCHEWAN: INITIATIVES, SUPPORTS, AND BARRIERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the years, health promotion has evolved from an approach focused on medical and behavioural factors to one that addresses broader determinants of health. Research to date has largely focused on medical and behavioural prevention activities of singular health disciplines. A descriptive, cross-sectional study design was used to explore perceived current and desired health promotion initiatives, supports, and barriers of Saskatchewan general practitioners/family physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and dietitians. The study was based on Labonte's framework for health promotion (medical, behavioural, and socio-environmental practice paradigms). An 80 item researcher-developed questionnaire was mailed to 400 randomly sampled health practitioners (100/professional group under study). Parametric (one-way ANOVAs, Pearson's product moment), non-parametric (chi-square), and multivariate (factorial validity) statistics were conducted. Response rates of nurses (53%), pharmacists (63%) and dietitians (69%) were impressive; the physician response rate was smaller than hoped (41%) limiting generalintions of physician's results. Reliability and correlation measures determined the 6-point Prevention Activities Scale (PAS) and subscales were highly reliable (r -values ranged from 0.72 to 0.81), linearly related (correlation values statistically significant at p ≤0.05), and highly associated (i.e., respondents did not distinguish between current and desired prevention activities). Factor analysis did not fully support the use of Labonte's three practice paradigms, yet produced a new PAS scale consisting of three discrete, highly reliable constructs (individual prevention, education, and advocacy initiatives). The reliability assessment of the factor analytically-based PAS suggested the subscales were more reliable than the original (r-values ranged from 0.77 to 092). The respondents' were largely middle-aged females (between 30 to 50 years of age) working in large urban settings with 0 to 10 years work experience. One-way ANOVAs determined most professions worked primarily within the medical and behavioural paradigms, with infrequent involvement in the socio-environmental paradigm. Approximately 50% of the respondents' most prominent bathers were limitations in time, remuneration, and funds. The respondents' personal belief in health promotion, perceived job responsibilities, multidisciplinary work environments, and the endorsement of colleagues, managers, health authorities, and professional association(s) were considered health promotion enabling factors.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".