The Texas Obesity Prevention Program - Essay Example

Essay Name Course Name and Code Date Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Introduction 4 Medicalization 4 Healthism 5 Pre-emptive Model of Risk 7 Conclusion 9 References 10 Executive Summary The paper discusses the Texas’ Obesity Prevention Program through the lenses of three theories: medicalization, healthism and preemptive risk model. The analysis indicates these theories applies but there are shortcomings of utilizing the theories without aligning to the strategic requirements of the initiative. For example, assumptions of appropriateness of the program raises concerns in achieving the goals because of individualism views and the characterization of medical requirements and processes. Introduction The aim of the essay is to analyze the Texas Department of State Health Services’ (2016) Obesity Prevention Program. The essay is to critique the Obesity Prevention Program through the principle of medicalization, healthism and pre-emptive model of risk, and analyze the shortcomings of these theories on the wider expectations of healthiness. Medicalization The current medical problem according to the Obesity Prevention Program is the complications associated with increased weights (Texas Department of State Health Services, 2016). The increased weights contribute to heart disease, stroke and high blood pressure (Stice et al. 2009). Understanding the medical problem enables identification of course of action and determines the effectiveness of any program implemented (Sobol‐Goldberg, Rabinowitz, and Gross, 2013). For example, Texas Government understands the wider impact of obesity on the healthcare in Texas meaning identifying the problem and consequences results in medical intervention. In the utilization of medicalization theory, numerous shortcomings are associated in public is made docile and relies on the directives of medical professionals. The obesity issue can also be viewed from genetics angle meaning the decision to utilize medicalization does not incorporate the natural processes rather focus on medical issues. Texas Department of State Health Services, 2016 proposes the customization of the health program to reflect the requirements of the individuals. For instance, health conscious and genetics can determine the appropriate treatment and medication regime or prevention regime (Birch and Ventura, 2009). The professiosnal medical qualifications can also inform the right strategy because these individuals can understand the problem and provide an appropriate diagnosis. Some traditional treatments sometimes works but problems of efficacy still occur (Gill et al. 2009). The qualification of the medical professions also determines the appropriate medication processes, and these professionals can perform specific obesity programs (Sobol‐Goldberg, Rabinowitz, and Gross, 2013). For example, gastric bypass commonly used to remove some parts of the body when the individual is unable to reflect positively to the non-invasive treatment regime (Birch and Ventura, 2009). The Obesity Prevention Program also contains aspects of medical professional qualifications and experiences even though it is not clearly indicated (Texas Department of State Health Services, 2016). The program is not only targeted at prevention but also addressing the current problems or persons experience obesity related challenges. However, the personalization of the treatment regime conforms to the negative views of medicalization, which are marketing the services and products and the role of pharmaceuticals companies taking the roles of doctors. Exercises and similar activities can be utilized in improving the health of individuals, but the medicalization of the entire process means prescriptions and medicines define the treatment regime. Healthism Obesity Prevention Program incorporates some of these variables (customization of health services and health consciousness) in addressing the obesity issue. For example, the current program is advanced by the public health institutions, which is aimed at customizing the treatment regime based on the diversity of the patients (Sobol‐Goldberg, Rabinowitz, and Gross, 2013). The diversity is in terms of the causative agents and the appropriate strategy to address the problem (Gill et al. 2009). Obesity Prevention Program considers the individual requirements and the wider societal expectations (Texas Department of State Health Services, 2016). For instance, the background of an individual is considered and therapies drafted, which incorporates the uniqueness of the patient. The society is targeted through creating awareness, highlighting the importance of healthy eating, and participating in exercises. These different components are contained in the Obesity Prevention Program. However, what the campaign does not indicate is the consequence of the decisions towards the wider public. The Texas Government thinks it can control, coerce and dictate the aims and requirements of individuals. What if an individual wants to maintain the unhealthy lifestyle? Who quantifies or describes what is unhealthy? Even though scientific evidence exists to answer some of these questions, but the intrusion may be seen as unethical and immoral and may affect the entire decision to implement the Obesity Prevention Program. Obesity Prevention Program has incorporated these different components (individualize treatment and personalized program) because it analyses the health of an individual and proposes appropriate measures to support healthism (Texas Department of State Health Services, 2016). For example, customized exercises and importance of eating healthy food, are an example of measures that targets individuals and also the wider community. Even though the focus of the Obesity Prevention Program is on prevention, the entire approach is targeted towards understanding obesity, the factors causing obesity, and strategies, which can be employed in advocating for healthism. The shortcomings of the decision to implement healthism can be seen as advancing profitability, screening that is sometimes skewed and creating perceptions such as not exercising or participating in healthy activities is a sin. Birch and Ventura (2009) states that watching individual and societal weights is important because of health reasons but who states what is right or wrong since the same medical professionals are the source of the entire information. Other people consume the “unhealthy” diet but are not obese; hence, what identifies the difference between what is wrong and what is good. Thus, healthism theory may be inappropriate or requires reevaluation to fit into the context of Obesity Prevention Program. Healthism concept targets numerous functions such as the individual health, the society health, and the role of government to uphold and provide quality medical services (Birch and Ventura, 2009). The strategic decision undertaken by Texas government is appropriate because it has a wider positive impact towards addressing complexities of obesity (Texas Department of State Health Services, 2016). The government decision is appropriate because the role of government institutions is to provide quality services and inform the public on measures and strategies to sustain healthy living. Therefore, the Texas government decision to sponsor and support the Obesity Prevention Program is appropriate since the government has data and general knowledge in the health and medical fields; thus, the decision of the government to embrace these decisions is appropriate for improving the overall health requirements. Pre-emptive Model of Risk The Obesity Prevention Program focuses on the preemptive medicine since the program understands the consequences of obesity to an individual (Texas Department of State Health Services, 2016). Ranging from heart problems to the inability to move appropriately, the solution is informing the community and society about the threats of obesity and measures employed to address this requirement (Gill et al. 2009). For example, walking up and down the stairs is one of the forms to improve the health of an individual since it is a form of an exercise (Birch and Ventura, 2009). The Texas government may also group the individuals on high-risk and provide customized health and medical assistance based on the medical condition of the individuals. Therefore, a preemptive model of risk has been integrated into the Obesity Prevention Program since the government understands the negative consequences of obesity. However, the preemptive strategy may become more expensive than planned or not yield the expected goals and requirements. The sources of information, the expected outcome and other factors contributing to the determination of preemptive strategy may be inappropriate, and for long term analysis, the outcome may not reflect the original intended expectations and goals. The interventions come in different forms including changing the lifestyle and provision of medication (Birch and Ventura, 2009). Texas Department of State Health Services, 2016 encourages heathy eating, participating in exercise and eating nutritious food. The preemptive strategy focuses on measures to improve the conditions, which is transferred to the overall management and support of the healthcare system (Gill et al. 2009). For example, the advice to reduce consumption of unhealthy food while participating in exercises reduces chances of obesity (Power et al. 2010). Employing the same strategy, persons suffering from obesity can address the problem because minor strategies such as exercises and healthy eating can address the problem (Sobol‐Goldberg, Rabinowitz, and Gross, 2013). Thus, the preemptive strategy is appropriate in understanding the current problems, providing proven medical processes, and the creation of the framework, which continuously supports the treatment or management regime. In the intervention program sometimes may be inappropriate based on situations and circumstances. What contributes to intervention strategy is the screening process, but situations, when the entire process is skewed, means the outcome of the processes may not align with original strategic obligations. Conclusion The Obesity Prevention Program is appropriate in addressing the public concerns at Texas Department. In understanding the components of the health program, different components are integrated, which includes medicalization, healthism, and preemptive model of risk. These components contribute differently to the overall prevention strategy; for example, the preemptive model of risk advises individuals to eat healthy food while medicalization encourages the use of medical systems. However, the effectiveness of these theories is questionable and debatable when viewed from a radical perspective. For example, the requirement of utilizing a healthism perspective negates individual perceptions and views on lifestyle. Thus, some of the components of the program may succeed but tuning of the process and reflecting the needs of the public is important. References Birch, L.L., and Ventura, A.K., 2009. Preventing childhood obesity: what works & quest. International Journal of Obesity, 33, pp. S74-S81. Cheek, J., 2008. Healthism: a new conservatism? Qualitative Health Research, 18(7), pp. 974-982. Gill, T.P., Baur, L.A., Bauman, A.E., Steinbeck, K.S., Storlien, L.H., Fiatarone Singh, M.A., Brand-Miller, J.C., Colagiuri, S. and Caterson, I.D., 2009. Childhood obesity in Australia remains a widespread health concern that warrants population-wide prevention programs. Medical Journal of Australia, 190(3), p.146. Halfmann, D.T., 2011. Recognizing medicalization and demedicalization: Discourses, practices, and identities. Health, 16(2), pp. 186 – 207. Imura, H., 2013. Life course health care and preemptive approach to non-communicable diseases. Proceedings of the Japan Academy. Series B, Physical and Biological Sciences, 89(10), p.462. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3883454/ [Accessed 19th October 2016] Power, T.G., Bindler, R.C., Goetz, S. and Daratha, K.B., 2010. Obesity prevention in early adolescence: student, parent, and teacher views. Journal of School Health, 80(1), pp. 13-19. Sobol‐Goldberg, S., Rabinowitz, J. and Gross, R., 2013. School‐based obesity prevention programs: A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Obesity, 21(12), pp. 2422 - 2428. Stice, E., Shaw, H., Bohon, C., Marti, C.N. and Rohde, P., 2009. A meta-analytic review of depression prevention programs for children and adolescents: factors that predict magnitude of intervention effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(3), p. 486. Texas Department of State Health Services. 2016. Obesity Prevention Program. Available at: https://www.dshs.texas.gov/obesity/ [Accessed 19th October 2016] Read More