School Based Youth Health Nurses and health promotion: The Ottawa what?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: The purpose of this research is to examine School Based Youth Health Nurses experience of health promotion. Background: The School Based Youth Health Nurse Program is a state-wide school nursing initiative in Queensland, Australia. The program employs more than 100 fulltime and fractional school nurses who provide health services in state high schools. The role incorporates two primary components: individual health consultations and health promotion strategies. Design/Methods: This study is a retrospective inquiry generated from a larger qualitative research project about the experience of school based youth health nursing. The original methodology was phenomenography. In-depth interviews were conducted with sixteen school nurses recruited through purposeful and snowball sampling. This study accesses a specific set of raw data about School Based Youth Health Nurses experience of health promotion. The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (1986) is used as a deductive framework for analysis. Results: The findings indicate school nurses have neither an adverse or affirmative conceptual experience of health promotion and an adverse operational experience of health promotion based on the action areas of the Ottawa Charter. Conclusions: The findings of this research are important because they challenge the notion that school nurses are the most appropriate health professionals to do school health promotion. If school nurses are the most appropriate health professionals to do school health promotion, there are implications for recruitment and training and qualifications. If school nurses are not, who are the most appropriate health professionals to do school health promotion ? Implications for Practice: These findings can be applied to other models of school nursing because they relate specifically to school nurses’ experience of health promotion.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".