The causes of holistic health disparities Among the people that record low levels of holistic health include the Indigenous communities in Australia, the low-income earning groups, the physically disabled, the illiterate, and the mentally challenged demographic segments of the society (NPHP, 2005). Notably, the lack of wellness and wellbeing does not just affect one person in the identified demographic segments; rather, it affects entire households. For example, a child from an economically disadvantaged background may lack sufficient food, which in turn may affect their physical and mental development.
The child may further lack access to education, and their chances of accessing quality healthcare may also be minimal. In such cases, the absence of holistic health permeates the entire household including the parents and their dependants. Addressing the holistic health disparities between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, Lewis (2011) observes that the former are affected by factors such as their colonised past, their health beliefs, and the “inflexibility of Western health professionals” (p. 2). Additionally, the Indigenous communities’ sense of racial inferiority, their dislocation from their ancestral lands, and the health professionals’ dismissal of the Indigenous communities’ spiritual and social beliefs all contribute to the poor holistic health outcomes registered in the communities (Lewis, 2011).
Eckermann et al. (2010) has similar opinions to Lewis (2011) observing that the Indigenous communities have a holistic approach to wellness since they perceive the physical, spiritual and social aspects of their living as being interconnected, and contributing to their overall health. A disruption in one of the factors therefore causes a decline in their wellness and wellbeing. Holistic health disparities, although concentrated among Indigenous communities living in rural areas, are not by any means a reserve of such communities only.
As indicated by NPHP (2005), other factors such as physical disability, less-than-optimal mental health, economic status, literacy levels, and substance use are among other factors that cause disparities in what would be considered ‘mainstream communities’. The term ‘mainstream communities’ in this case is used in reference to communities who are not disadvantaged either by cultural orientations, or their geographical location. For example, the urban populations (both Indigenous and non-Indigenous) still register holistic health disparities despite their access to health services, better housing (although this is a subjective condition), and better access to education.
Government policies also have a major effect on the holistic wellness and wellbeing of the populace especially since it is such policies that determine the targeted interventions on communities that have historically registered poor overall health outcomes. As the overseer of its citizenry’s wellbeing, the federal government and the respective regional governments have not paid enough attention to ensuring that the disparities in health outcomes are reduced. For example, identified demographic segments such as the disabled people, the mentally challenged, the single-household families with no regular source of income, and other disadvantaged population segments should be the recipient of targeted government affirmative policies which when effected, would improve their physical, spiritual, emotional, and mental wellness.
Durey and Thompson (2012) for example suggest that disadvantaged demographic segments should benefit from government policies that grant them funding and adequate coverage in areas where they have inadequacies. For example, the economically disadvantaged populations should benefit from policies that ensure they have their basic needs in food, housing, clothing, education, and healthcare (routine medical checkups and complex treatments) covered. Social and environmental aspects have also been found to have an effect on the disparities registered in different population segments.
Read More