ArticleFrontiers in public health2023
QATCHEPP: A quality assessment tool for critical health promotion practice.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Understanding how food literacy is characterized and measured in the Pacific Islands region: a scoping review.Health promotion international · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The origins of health promotion are based in critical practice; however, health promotion practice is still dominated by selective biomedical and behavioral approaches, which are insufficient to reduce health inequities resulting from the inequitable distribution of structural and systemic privilege and power. The Red Lotus Critical Health Promotion Model (RLCHPM), developed to enhance critical practice, includes values and principles that practitioners can use to critically reflect on health promotion practice. Existing quality assessment tools focus primarily on technical aspects of practice rather than the underpinning values and principles. The aim of this project was to develop a quality assessment tool to support critical reflection using the values and principles of critical health promotion. The purpose of the tool is to support the reorientation of health promotion practice toward a more critical approach. Research design: We used Critical Systems Heuristics as the theoretical framework to develop the quality assessment tool. First, we refined the values and principles in the RLCHPM, then created critical reflective questions, refined the response categories, and added a scoring system. Results: The Quality Assessment Tool for Critical Health Promotion Practice (QATCHEPP) includes 10 values and associated principles. Each value is a critical health promotion concept, and its associated principle provides a description of how the value is enacted in professional practice. QATCHEPP includes a set of three reflective questions for each value and associated principle. For each question, users score the practice as strongly, somewhat, or minimally/not at all reflective of critical health promotion practice. A percentage summary score is generated with 85% or above indicative of strongly critical practice, 50% ≤ 84% is somewhat critical practice, and < 50% minimally or does not reflect critical practice. Conclusion: QATCHEPP provides theory-based heuristic support for practitioners to use critical reflection to assess the extent to which practice aligns with critical health promotion. QATCHEPP can be used as part of the Red Lotus Critical Promotion Model or as an independent quality assessment tool to support the orientation of health promotion toward critical practice. This is essential to ensure that health promotion practice contributes to enhancing health equity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.