The Concept of Health Promotion - Essay Example

The notion of health promotion is defined not only in terms of positive health outcomes but also by the various means and types. Health Promotion hasits roots in the most important human right- benefitting from high standards of health (WHO, 2009). The basic purpose of health promotion is to help people manage and control the various elements that constitute health (WHO, 2009). Health promotion is defined as a blend of various educational and environmental support mechanisms for actions and conditions that are conducive to a better life (Green & Kreuter, 1999).It includes mediation, advocacy and enabling mechanisms (WHO, 2009).Those involved in such behaviors can be teachers, students, employers, the government, activists or organizations that aim to influence the various elements of health. In some cases, the drivers of such actions are individuals; whereas, in other cases, such as alcoholism and smoking, a collective mindset and use of force is necessary. Such cases may require use of coercion to enforce the corrective action. A significant aspect of health promotion is health education which aims at creating learning experiences for people by imparting knowledge related to the various elements of health and demonstrating what actions are needed to maintain good health (Green & Kreuter, 1999). Health education maybe an individual or a collective effort; it may result in direct benefit (to the person who is suffering from health problems) or indirect benefit/ positive externality (to people other than the person being educated) (Bandura, 1977). What distinguishes health education from secondary learning is that health education is a methodical, planned learning exercise which is proactively undertaken in order to make people aware of the various risks associated with health and their possible solutions (Ottoson & Green, 1987). The concept of health promotion; however, extends beyond that of health education in that the former attempts to facilitate the high quality of life outcomes proposed by health education . It provides the necessary organizational, political, social and economic mechanisms needed to achieve the objectives proposed by health education. In other words, one may infer that health education is a pre requisite to health promotion; without self-awareness regarding health-related issues health promotion is futile. Without health education, health promotion would be limited to a politically manipulated activity marked by death of the “social” aspect of health promotion needed to avoid the manipulation. Over the years, there has been a growing shift of responsibility associated with positive health outcomes from the government and environmental agencies to individuals (Bunton, 1993). Thus the balance has tilted from environmental activists, medical agencies and public service institutions to individuals, schools, and households (Bunton, 1993). This has been made possible by the rapid influx and falling prices of technology, greater awareness through media as well as high levels of community support for such health promotion programs. Schools are not volunteering in educating students about healthy diet and issues such as obesity, AIDS, as well as preventing the use of drugs and alcohol (Tonin, 1980). Community organizations have sprung up in order to promote better standards of living for its members. Such action involves greater co ordination and communication across various sectors of the society (Thorogood, 1992). However, in order to achieve the intended outcomes and attain maximum efficiency, health promotion must be simultaneously achieved at both levels (the individual and collective) (Thorogood, 1992). Thus, all groups pursuing health promotion ought to decide their share of contribution to the overall effort in the context of local culture and lifestyle (Thorogood, 1992). Victims of poor health are a vital component of this decision-making process and their views on which group should attain maximum responsibility ought to be taken into account (Green, 1986) (Flynn et al., 1994). Health promotion centers on efforts of the community. It is important to define the term community here. A community refers to a county or a town in less densely populated sub urban areas or may refer to a neighborhood or an educational institution in densely populated areas (McKenzie et al., 2008). The concept extends to people connected by commonality of culture, ethnicity, social status or political association (Green & Ottoson, 1999). Community involvement in health education takes into account The concept of community health promotion refers to active participation of local social groups and local leadership in order to support the diffusion and strengthen the initiative of appropriate health measures for the population as whole along with the establishment of a strong social policy framework to enable the enforcement and enactment of health regulations (Piette, 1990). The concept of community health operates on the basis of strong co ordination between the government at the national level and individuals at the local level (Piette, 1990). The government is responsible for providing the policy framework, framing the health legislations, supervising and allocating the necessary budget towards health promotion whereas, the individuals are responsible for executing those policies and taking necessary corrective actions for better health (Green & Shoveller, 2000). Priorities for behavioral change (that is, should A come before B or vice versa) are at best determined at the local level close to the local context (Green & Shoveller, 2000). This “decentralization of public health” has gained momentum over the past few years (Green & Shoveller, 2000), making way for more speedy, efficient mechanisms for dealing with health issues. Community health promotion thrives on active participation and communication in the form of coalitions, assemblies and communal agencies. For instance, the Healthy Cities Movement organized by WHO operates in more than 1400 cities and aims to fuel local governments’ and community efforts towards protection of health of its citizens (Barton & Tsourou, 2000). In all cases, health promotion requires a great deal of co operation between the two levels (that is, the government or institutional level and the individual level) without which strong agendas to promote health can fail. Trust building exercises are essential and mutual participation is necessary for efficient functioning of the health promotion campaign. Strategies that deal with health promotion operate at the ecological level; that is, they involve social, ethnic, environmental and economic concerns. On a global level, there have been tremendous efforts concerning health awareness and public health programs, most notably the UNICEF efforts on selective health care support, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), Global Fund to Fight AIDS, and the ‘Three by five’ support program (Haines, 2007). In an attempt to gauge the effectiveness of public health efforts and assess its contribution to positive health, the International Union for Health Promotion and Education along with the WHO has undertaken the Global Program on Health Promotion Effectiveness (GPHPE). The program takes into account differences in cultural and regional dynamics. In order to verify a positive relationship between health promotion and its contribution to positive health, evidence is required. An important aspect of health promotion programs is the hygiene awareness initiatives. Under such programs, trained health educators are assist communities and individuals in making the latter aware of the problems associated with being unhygienic and give them the necessary resources needed to attain minimum acceptable standards of hygiene. However, such programs maybe time consuming; long term relationship building is required between the health and social workers and the community which requires complete dedication, monetary resources and time. Furthermore, health programs enable in reduction of health costs by 20%-55%, reduction of sick leave in organizations in the short run by 6%-32% and increased productivity by 2%-52% (WHO, 2009). The focus of health promotion is now tilting towards the promotion of mental health as opposed to the traditional physical health, particularly in more developed nations such as Europe and U.S.A (Stengård & Appelqvist-Schmidlechner, 2010). By averting or reducing the intensity of mental illnesses, health promotion is claimed to lower the rate of suicide which is one of the leading causes of adolescent death in Europe (WHO, 2001). Health promotion and education on how to overcome mental disorders are said to reduce health care costs by 6% (Suhrcke, 2007). It is a widely recognized fact that unequal access to positive health has its roots in the societal inequities (Tones & Tilford, 1994). By bridging the gap between social, economic and organizational policies, health promotion fosters greater equity, thus providing equal opportunity to positive health for underprivileged and minority groups such as the disabled and women (Tones & Tilford, 1994). Collective action ensures that healthier commodities, public services and environments are promoted (Minkler, 1997). By putting ‘health’ on top priority, health promotion policies ensure that non-health sectors are actively participating in promoting good health (Milio, 1983). Furthermore, since work has overtaken the time for leisure for most people, health promotion policies ensure that the work environment is conducive to good health. An important aspect of health promotion is that it leads to personal development by making pertinent information available and fostering skills needed to run a healthy life. Thus, it prepares people for the worst in life- serious sickness and injuries. Concern for others, holism and environmentalism are the central tenets of health promotion; thus, by promoting these values health promotion translates into positive health (WHO, 2009). A crucial aspect of health promotion effort is that it makes the government and other health institutions accountable for the health-related outcomes of their policies as well as for absence of policies (Rifkin et al., 1988). It is also recognized by most health organizations, including the WHO, that women are the primary vehicles in health promotion (Wallerstein, 1992). Networks and communities run by women traditionally have not received the desired attention from policymaking groups (Wallerstein, 1992) (Krieger, 1999). Thus, the aim of health promotion is to ensure women’s access to all pertinent information, resources and networks in order to channelize their efforts effectively towards generating positive health outcomes (Lord & Hutchison, 1993). Under this aim it is recognized that women have the right of autonomy concerning their health (Lord & Hutchison, 1993). By ensuring safe birthing methods, flexible work schedules and greater maternal care, health promotion ensures women benefit from positive health outcomes (Lord & Hutchison, 1993) (Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988). Keeping in view the mental, social and physical trauma associated with the use of smoking and drugs, other health promotion efforts call for the ban of use of these substances as well as subsidies and reduced taxation on healthy products (Rose, 1985). To sum up, health promotion translates into positive health outcomes when adequate amount of resources are devoted to its disposal, and when justice and equity govern the entire process. It cannot be achieved without co operation within and between nations. Continuous investments in research, adequate training of health workers and empowerment of individuals are a pre requisite to ensuring that health promotion leads to positive health. For health promotion to be effective, the concept of positive health outcomes needs to be included at an industry-wide level to ensure that agricultural and economic developments are taking into account the impact on people’s health. Perhaps, equitable distribution of resources and the pursuance of politically sound measures at the cost of social welfare shall remain a challenge to health promotion in years to come and must be put atop on the agenda of all concerned health institutions. References Bandura, A., 1977. Social Foundations of Thought and Action. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Barton, H. & Tsourou, C., 2000. Healthy urban planning: a WHO guide to planning for people. London: Spon Press. Bunton, R., 1993. Health Promotion. Disciplines and Diversity. London: Routledge. Flynn, B.C., Ray, D.W. & Rider, M.S., 1994. Empowering Communities: Action Research through Healthy Cities. Health Education Quarterly, 21, p.395–406. Green, L.W., 1986. The Theory of Participation: A Qualitative Analysis of Its Expression in National and International Health Policies. Advances in Health Education and Promotion , p.211–236. Green, L.W. & Kreuter, M.W., 1999. Health Promotion Planning: An Educational and Ecological Approach. 3rd ed. Mayfield: Moutain View. Green, L.W. & Ottoson, J.M., 1999. Community and Population Health. 8th ed. Missouri: Mc Graw-Hill. Green, L.W. & Shoveller, J.A., 2000. Fatal Consumption: The Failure of Sustainable Development. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Haines, A., 2007. Editorial: Contribution of health systems to disease control. Tropical Medicine and International Health , 12(2), pp.1275-78. Krieger, N., 1999. Embodying Inequality: A Review of Concepts, Measures, and Methods for Studying the Health Consequences of Discrimination. International Journal of Health Services, 29(2), pp.295-352. Lord, J. & Hutchison, 1993. The Process of Empowerment: Implications for Theory and Practice. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health , 12(1), pp.5-22. McKenzie, J.F., Pinger, R.R. & Kotecki, J.E., 2008. An introduction to community health. London: Jones and Barlett Publishers. Milio, N., 1983. Promoting Health through Public Policy. Philadelphia: Davis. Minkler, M., 1997. Community Organizing and Community Building for Health. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. Ottoson, J.M. & Green, L.W., 1987. Reconciling Concept and Context: Theory of Implementation. Advances in Health Education and Promotion, 2, p.353–382. Piette, D., 1990. Community Participation in Formal Decision Making. Health Promotion International, 5, p.187–197. Rifkin, S.B., Muller, F. & Bichmann, W., 1988. Primary Health Care: On Measuring Participation. Social Science and Medicine, 29, pp.931-40. Rose, G., 1985. Sick Individuals and Sick Populations. International Journal of Epidemiology, 14, pp.32-38. Stengård, E. & Appelqvist-Schmidlechner, K., 2010. Mental Health Promotion in Young People – an Investment for the Future. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe World Health Organization. Suhrcke, M..P.D.&.S.C., 2007. Economic aspects of mental health in children and adolescents. In: WHO. Social cohesion for mental well-being among adolescents. WHO/HBSC Forum 2007. Thorogood, N., 1992. What Is the Relevance of Sociology for Health Promotion?" In Health Promotion: Disciplines and Diversity. London: Routledge. Tones, K. & Tilford, S., 1994. Health Education: Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Equity. 2nd ed. London: Chapman and Hall. Tonin, M.O., 1980. Concepts in Community Participation. International Journal of Health Education, 23, pp.1-13. Wallerstein, N., 1992. Powerlessness, Empowerment, and Health: Implications for Health Promotion Programs. American Journal of Health Promotion , 6(3), pp.197-205. WHO, 2001. Mental Health: New understanding, new hope. The World Health Report 2001. Geneva: World Health Organization WHO. WHO, 2009. Health Promotion Action Means. In Milestones in Health Promotion- Statements from Global Conferences. Geneva, 2009. WHO Press. WHO, 2009. The Bangkok Charter for Health Promotion in a Globalized World. In Milestones in health promotion: Statements from global conferences. Geneva, 2009. WHO Press. WHO, 2009. The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. In Milestones in Health Promotion : Statements from Global Conferences. Geneva, 2009. WHO Press. Zimmerman, M.A. & Rappaport, J., 1988. Citizen Participation, Perceived Control, and Psychological Empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology , 16(5), pp.725-50. Read More