Health Promotion Issue - Essay Example

?HEALTH PROMOTION ISSUE Health Promotion Issue Introduction Health promotion is one of the most important aspectsof health care. It helps ensure that patients, as well as health care givers remain healthy and that they are able to avoid future health problems. In the process of promoting healthy habits and practices, there are however issues which often emerge. These issues often delay the delivery of health services and interfere with the healthy well being of patients, the general public, and health professionals. One such issue is the issue of smoking among health promoters. This issue is one of the most common issues in health care because it negates the teachings and goals which the health practitioners seek for their patients. Patients who have cardiovascular diseases and respiratory tract diseases may find it hard to take their doctor or nurse seriously if these health professionals advice them to quit smoking. In the end, the credibility of these health promoters is diminished. This paper shall now identify the way in which politics relates to this health promotion issue. In addition, it shall consider one theoretical knowledge base (advocacy) and evaluate the way it relates to practice. This paper is being carried out in order to establish a clear understanding of health promotion and the issues which interfere with it. Discussion Health promoters like nurses, doctors, pharmacists, occupational therapists, and other health professionals have vulnerabilities similar to the general population. Just as the general population can be vulnerable to addictive behaviours and substance abuse, so can health promoters (Ayad, 2010, p. 11). The difference is that these health promoters are fully aware of the dangers that their possible addictions can bring to their body and their overall health condition. Moreover, the fact that these health promoters teach and educate their patients and the general public about applying and implementing healthy habits into their life, makes the addictive behaviours a greater concern (Ayad, 2010, p. 11). For the most part, they are compromising their credibility and believability as health professionals and as health promoters. Statistics in the US indicate that smokers among the health professionals are mostly nurses, with about 8% of nurses being smokers and only 1% of physicians being smokers (Ayad, 2010, p. 11). The fact that some of these health professionals smoke within health facilities makes this issue an even more difficult one to resolve. In the UK, the issue of smoking is more prevalent in the nursing profession, with about 30% of nurses being smokers, as compared to doctors with only about 9% of them being smokers (Nursing Times, 2008). With the above scenario in the health care practice, the issue of health promotion now stems from the credibility of health promoters who are also smokers. The health promotion process among nurses, doctors, and other health professionals can be considered in the wider area of health promotion – in terms of politics and research. Politics, more specifically, legislation and policy-making can help implement wider health promotion standards. In different countries and institutions, no smoking ordinances have been used as a means of promoting better health for the general population. In a study by Fichtenberg and Glantz (2002, p. 325), the authors set out to evaluate the impact of having smoke-free workplaces on smoking employees. This study was able to establish that having totally smoke-free workplaces are linked with the reduced prevalence of smoking among smokers. The combination of decreased ease and convenience by which smokers can indulge their habits is effectively reducing the prevalence of smoking among health promoters. Moreover, smoke-free workplaces help protect non-smokers from the negative effects of passive smoking (Fichtenberg and Glantz, 2002, p. 325). Non-smoking policies in hospitals and in other health care facilities assist in the process of reducing smoking among health promoters. In a paper by Andrews, (1983, p. 206) the author set out to evaluate the process of reducing smoking in the hospitals. This process was started upon the recognition that smoking-related illnesses have increased and that health facilities must also assist in preventing these diseases and reducing second-hand smoke. The assessment of the hospital’s program revealed features like policy formation and implementation; no smoking in most areas of the hospital; no cigarettes sold in hospitals; and publicity within the hospital facilities about the health effects of smoking (Andrews, 1983, p. 206). Questions were raised with hospital staff members 20 months after the implementation of the smoking policy. After the period, the study revealed that about 93% of non-smokers and 83% of smokers approved of the hospital’s no smoking policy (Andrews, 1983, p. 206). In fact 26% of previous smokers were able to quit within the time period and 33% of smokers were able to smoke less. This indicates how the health policies and ordinance assist in ensuring a wider health promotion. In another study, Frohlich and Hudzinski, (1990, p. 1198) set out to assess literature on the attitudes of employees, staff physicians, and patients in medical institutions covering topics like: impact of tobacco on employees and patients; employee acceptance of no-smoking policies before and after its implementation; and consequences on employee smokers (Frohlich and Hudzinski, 1990, p. 1198). The study set forth that most patients, employees, and physicians were bothered by smoking in the hospital premises. They considered smoke from the cigarettes to be offensive due to smell, eye irritation, provocation of sinus problems, coughing and headache. About 80% of them favoured the implementation of the no-smoking policy and the other employees increasingly favoured it as the study period progressed. After a year into the study, 74% of the smokers indicate that the no smoking policy has helped them in managing their smoking habits (Frohlich and Hudzinski, 1990, p. 1198). For patients who continued to smoke, about 80% of them smoked less than they did before the policy was implemented. Once again, there is a strong connection shown here on the importance of policy-making on promoting the health of most people. The importance of politics and policy in the wider implementation of health promotion can be understood within the context of a management prerogative. From the management hierarchy, the process of health promotion is better achieved if it is made a part of the institution. An article from the BBC News (2005) sets forth the importance of imposing smoking bans in all hospital buildings. These policies set forth the gold standards by which health promotion strategies are implemented. Policies are considered strong lines and firm mandates for employees and health promoters – for them to consider a change in their habits for their benefit and for the benefit of other people, especially patients. Health promotion is one of the most difficult processes to carry out because it seems to take on the form of a suggestion or a recommendation. However, when it is set forth as a policy, it takes on a more authoritative note (Talbot and Verrinder, 2009, p. 93). The no-smoking policy in hospitals brings the message across clearly to health promoters, patients, and health professionals. It serves as an important reminder to them of the health risks involved with smoking. It serves also to send them a message that if they are not entirely concerned about their health, they must still follow hospital policies for the sake of other individuals inhabiting the hospital facilities (BBC News, 2005). The basis for health promotion in this policy is health advocacy. Advocacy is a crucial part of health promotion because it helps overcome the major barriers to public health (WHO, 2011, p. 3). It also focuses on implementing large-scale changes in policies and programmes; it also helps mobilize resources and the opinions which seek to support them (Rice, 1999, p. 2). Advocacy focuses on decision-makers, managers, and those who are in a position to impact on actions which affect different individuals simultaneously (Rice, 1999, p. 2). Advocacy is also similar to empowerment as it gives people the power to ensure that institutions are responsive to people’s needs. Advocacy is therefore a strong basis for health promotion because it seeks to implement a way of life which is defined by health principles and policies (McCubbin, et.al., 2001, p. 6). Empowerment helps shape health promotion (Wallack et al., 1993, p. 28). Health promotion initiatives involve the process of empowering individuals and the general population. The fact that there are no empowering initiatives must be considered as a signal that interventions are not classified within the purview of health promotion (Green, Poland, and Rootman, 2000, p. 8). In separating advocacy from health promotion, it is still important to define advocacy in terms of the range of activities which help improve public health. Advocacy helps provide details within the health promotion goals in order to assist in the strict and efficient implementation of policies. Conclusion Smoking among health promoters is a crucial issue in health promotion because it is a practice which destroys the credibility of health promoters and which endangers the health of vulnerable patients. In terms of politics and policies, this issue can be resolved through the implementation of smoking bans. Smoking bans in hospitals help ensure that smoking health promoters would make the conscious effort of not smoking in compliance with hospital policies. Consequently, this would likely cause a reduction in smoking or even total stoppage of smoking. Health promotion is based on advocacy. In turn, advocacy is based on the more widespread goals of public health and safety. All in all, smoking bans seek to achieve improved policies in healthcare management and advocacy. Works Cited Andrews, J. (1983), Reducing Smoking in the Hospital: An Effective Model Program, American College of Chest Physicians, volume 84(2), pp. 206-209 Ayad, J. (2010), Health Care Providers Who Smoke, American Journal of Nursing, volume 110(6), p. 11 BBC News (2005), Hospitals advised to ban smoking, viewed 06 May 2011 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4206765.stm Fichtenberg, C. & Glantz, S. (2002), Effect of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behaviour: systematic review, British Medical Journal, viewed 06 May 2011 from http://www.bmj.com/content/325/7357/188.full Green, L., Poland, B., & Rootman, I. (2000), The settings approach to health promotion. In B.D. Poland, L.W. Green, and I. Rootman (eds.), Settings for health promotion: Linking theory and practice, pp. 1-43. Sage: London. Hudzinski, L. & Frohlich, E. (1990), One-year longitudinal study of a no-smoking policy in a medical institution, CHEST, volume 97, number 5, pp. 1198-1202 McCubbin, M., Labonte, R. & Dallaire, B. (2001), Advocacy for healthy public policy as a health promotion technology, Centre for Health Promotion (on-line archives), viewed 06 May 2011 from http://www.utoronto.ca/chp/symposium.htm Nursing Times, (2008), Nurses' Health Study shows nurses smoke more than doctors, viewed 06 May 2011 from http://www.nursingtimes.net/whats-new-in-nursing/nurses-health-study-shows-nurses-smoke-more-than-doctors/1934686.article Rice, M. (1999), Advocacy and reproductive health: Successes and challenges (letter), Promotion and Education, volume 6(2), pp. 2-3. Talbot, L. & Verrinder, G. (2009), Promoting Health: The Primary Health Care Approach, London: Elsevier Australia Wallack, L., Dorfman, L., Jernigan, D., & Themba, M. (1993), Media advocacy and public health: Power for prevention, London: Sage. Read More