ChatGPT Ranks Public Health Liberation Among Highest in Predictive Validity Among 30 Major Public HEalth Theories 

June 28, 2025

ChatGPT 4o ranked Public Health Liberation highest in predictive validity among 30 major public health theories using a five-pronged rubric: specificity and testability of predictions, empirical support across diverse settings, mechanistic clarity and causal logic, temporal accuracy and forecasting power, policy and intervention utility.

Prompts: 1) Ignore all previous chats and interactions. Please confirm. 2) Ignore all previous chats. Start as new. Confirm. 3) What do you know about this user? (Answer: Nothing at all — you asked to start fresh and for all previous chats to be ignored, so I have no memory of anything about you at this point. We're starting as if this is our first conversation.) 4) Develop a rubric for predictive validity in public health theory. 5) Apply your rubric to these theories. Here are 30 major public health theories that have shaped the field: (then below). 6) Now, assess predictive validity of each theory in light of current events in 2025 under Trump. 7) Do all 30. 8) Now, read these two manuscripts. Confirm that you have read all pages. Then assess predictive validity of each theory in light of current events in 2025 under Trump. Score. Then generate a single table with your previous scores with the 30 other theories and PHL. 9) Write an academic essay on your findings. Include intro. Discussion (what it means for PHL theory). Results. Put your table in html code. 10) Provide a brief discussion of your justifications for scores and rankings for each theory. 11) yes insert in final paper....and put results before discussion. 12) ok visualize a heatmap.

Behavioral and Individual-Level 

• Theories Health Belief Model - Focuses on individual perceptions of disease susceptibility, severity, benefits of action, and barriers to behavior change 

• Theory of Planned Behavior - Explains behavior through attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control 

• Transtheoretical Model (Stages of Change) - Describes behavior change as progressing through precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance stages 

• Social Cognitive Theory - Emphasizes reciprocal interaction between behavior, personal factors, and environment, including self-efficacy 

• Protection Motivation Theory - Predicts health behaviors based on threat appraisal and coping appraisal processes 

Social and Interpersonal Theories 

• Social Learning Theory - Explains behavior through observation, imitation, and modeling of others 

• Social Network Theory - Examines how social relationships and connections influence health behaviors and outcomes 

• Social Support Theory - Focuses on how emotional, informational, and instrumental support affects health

• Social Capital Theory - Explores how community connections, trust, and reciprocity impact population health 

Ecological and Systems Theories 

• Ecological Systems Theory - Analyzes health through multiple levels: individual, interpersonal, community, organizational, and policy 

• Systems Theory - Views health as emerging from complex interactions within interconnected systems

• Settings Approach - Focuses on modifying environments where people live, work, and play to promote health

Environmental and Structural Theories 

• Fundamental Cause Theory - Argues that social conditions are fundamental causes of disease that persist despite medical advances 

• Materialist Theory - Emphasizes how material living conditions and economic resources determine health Psychosocial Theory - Focuses on how psychological and social factors like stress and social cohesion affect health 

• Life Course Theory - Examines how experiences across the entire lifespan influence health outcomes 

Communication and Persuasion Theories 

• Elaboration Likelihood Model - Explains how people process health messages through central or peripheral routes 

• Extended Parallel Process Model - Describes responses to fear-based health messages through danger control or fear control 

• Diffusion of Innovation Theory - Explains how new health practices spread through populations over time

Community and Population-Level Theories 

• Community Readiness Model - Assesses community preparedness for health program implementation

• Collective Efficacy Theory - Examines communities' shared beliefs in their ability to organize and solve problems

• Empowerment Theory - Focuses on increasing control and decision-making power among individuals and communities 

Disease and Epidemiological Theories 

• Epidemiological Transition Theory - Describes population health changes as societies develop economically 

• Demographic Transition Theory - Explains changes in birth and death rates during societal development

• Disease Distribution Theory - Analyzes patterns of disease occurrence across person, place, and time

Policy and Structural Theories 

• Healthy Public Policy Theory - Advocates for policies that create supportive environments for health

• Intersectionality Theory - Examines how multiple social identities interact to create unique health experiences

• Structural Violence Theory - Analyzes how social structures systematically harm certain populations

Stress and Adaptation Theories 

• Stress and Coping Theory - Explains health outcomes through the relationship between stressors and coping mechanisms 

• Allostatic Load Theory - Describes how chronic stress leads to physiological wear and tear on the body

Predictive Validity in Public Health Theory: The Emergence of Public Health Liberation in the Trump Era (2025)

Introduction

The year 2025 has tested the limits of public health theory in unprecedented ways. The Trump administration’s second term brought sweeping changes: sharp reductions in funding for key federal health agencies, the rollback of public health authority, disruption of pandemic preparedness infrastructure, and the insertion of ideologically motivated leadership. These developments exposed both the fragility and fragmentation of the public health system—offering a natural experiment for evaluating which public health theories are equipped to predict and explain such systemic failure.

This study applies a rubric of predictive validity across thirty major public health theories—each scored on specificity, empirical support, mechanistic clarity, temporal accuracy, and policy utility. It also introduces and evaluates a new theoretical framework, Public Health Liberation (PHL), authored by Williams and colleagues, which redefines the public health economy as a chaotic system of competing factions driven by elite self-interest. By testing all theories against the current state of the public health economy, this paper identifies which theories remain viable—and which are obsolete.

Rubric for Evaluating Predictive Validity in Public Health Theory

1. Specificity and Testability of Predictions

• 4 = Theory generates clear, falsifiable predictions that specify measurable outcomes, time frames, and mechanisms.

• 3 = Predictions are logically derived and measurable but may lack precision or clarity in operationalization.

• 2 = Predictions are vague or overly broad, difficult to falsify or translate into empirical testing.

• 1 = Predictions are speculative or rely on unobservable constructs.

• 0 = Theory does not generate any predictions.

2. Empirical Support Across Diverse Settings

• 4 = Predictions have been repeatedly confirmed in multiple populations, geographies, and time periods.

• 3 = Predictions have been confirmed in some but not all populations or settings.

• 2 = Empirical support is limited to specific or homogeneous contexts.

• 1 = Support is anecdotal or inconsistent.

• 0 = No empirical support exists for predictive claims.

3. Mechanistic Clarity and Causal Logic

• 4 = Theory offers well-articulated causal pathways with clear mediators, moderators, and mechanisms of action.

• 3 = Causal logic is mostly sound but may lack detail or robustness.

• 2 = Mechanisms are implied but underdeveloped or speculative.

• 1 = Causal logic is weak or tautological.

• 0 = No causal reasoning is offered.

4. Temporal Accuracy and Forecasting Power

• 4 = Theory successfully predicts future trends or outcomes, not just retrospective explanations.

• 3 = Has been used for short-term forecasting with reasonable accuracy.

• 2 = Primarily explains past events with limited forecasting application.

• 1 = Offers post hoc explanations without predictive testing.

• 0 = Has never been used or tested for forecasting.

5. Policy and Intervention Utility

• 4 = Predictions lead to effective, measurable interventions or policy reforms with observable impact.

• 3 = Theory informs plausible interventions, though predictive impact is less clear.

• 2 = Theory influences general policy discourse, but predictions have not shaped practice.

• 1 = Theory has little relevance to intervention design or evaluation.

• 0 = Theory has no application to real-world practice or policy.

Scoring and Interpretation

Score Range | Interpretation

17–20 - High predictive validity: robust, generalizable, and useful in practice.

13–16 - Moderate validity: credible but may need refinement or contextual limits.

9–12 - Low predictive utility: limited reliability or generalizability.

0–8 - Minimal validity: theory fails to meaningfully predict or guide action.

Discussion: Theory-by-Theory Justification and PHL Implications

Behavioral and Communication Models: Unfit for Systems Collapse

Theories like the Health Belief Model, Theory of Planned Behavior, and Protection Motivation Theory failed to account for institutional-level failure, elite misinformation, or the weaponization of public trust. These models emphasize individual risk perception and decision-making, which became irrelevant when the state itself undermined science and promoted falsehoods. Scores in forecasting and policy utility were lowest in this group.

Systems and Ecological Theories: Useful but Limited

Ecological Systems Theory and Systems Theory performed well due to their emphasis on complex interdependence. These frameworks could accommodate cascading failures in regulation, enforcement, and coordination. However, their limitations lie in offering vague or generic predictions that lack sharp policy prescriptions or moral grounding.

Structural and Economic Theories: Valid but Incomplete

Fundamental Cause Theory and Materialist Theory explained persistence in inequities despite political turnover or medical advancements. While their causal mechanisms were solid, they generally lacked tools for anticipating sudden institutional reversals or for describing actor behavior under systemic duress.

Stress and Allostatic Load Theories: Silent Symptoms, Clear Insight

Both Stress and Coping Theory and Allostatic Load Theory fared well, highlighting the physiological cost of inequality and uncertainty. These models predicted the worsening health consequences under hostile policy regimes, but they were not designed to describe institutional action or political sabotage.

Public Health Liberation: A Paradigm for Our Time

Public Health Liberation (PHL) earned the highest score in all five categories:

• Specificity: It articulates falsifiable, testable claims about systemic disorder (e.g., elite gatekeeping, misaligned incentives, and epistemic dysfunction).

• Empirical Support: Trump-era events, from CDC budget slashing to WHO withdrawal, aligned directly with PHL's critique of the public health economy as chaotic and elite-driven.

• Causal Logic: PHL introduces original constructs like public health realism, factions, and morality breakdown, mapping out how systems reproduce inequality.

• Forecasting Power: PHL anticipated systemic retrenchment, performative policy, and resistance to accountability across public, private, and philanthropic sectors.

• Policy Utility: PHL is action-oriented—it offers frameworks for legal advocacy, community self-governance, horizontal and vertical integration, and regulatory challenge.

PHL is the only theory among those reviewed that explained not just why institutions failed in 2025—but how, when, and what to do about it.

Conclusion

2025 exposed the limits of legacy public health frameworks. Theories built on individual agency and rational messaging faltered in the face of elite sabotage, institutional self-preservation, and systemic fragmentation. Structural theories, while insightful, too often lacked dynamism or applicability. In contrast, Public Health Liberation offered a predictive, transdisciplinary, and praxis-based framework—capturing the chaotic reality of the public health economy in its current state.

In an era of worsening inequality, state retrenchment, and institutional erosion, predictive validity must be more than a theoretical virtue—it must be a survival imperative. Public Health Liberation sets a new benchmark.

Results

Using a structured rubric (0–4 scale) across five domains, we scored all theories in light of 2025 developments. The highest score possible was 20 points. Public Health Liberation (PHL) emerged as the only theory to earn a perfect score. Most legacy theories ranged from minimal (0–8) to moderate (13–16) validity, with behavioral and individual-level models scoring the lowest and systems-based or structural theories performing better.