Health Promotion Theories - Research Paper Example

Health promotion theories 1.0. Introduction The term health organization defines health promotion as the process of helping persons improve their wellbeing, as well as take control of their own health. In the thought of WHO (1986), health promotion goes beyond the personal perceptions of different social interventions and environmental involvement. The author continues to argue that health promotion is a practice aimed at making individuals to take control of their individual health (WHO, 1986). Therefore, this promotion is not done on people, but by people and with people as groups or as individuals (Mittelmark et al, 2008). The main objective of health promotion is to reinforce the abilities and skills of individuals to take control of their health and the ability of groups or societies to control the causes of ill health and attain positive development (Naidoo and Wills, 2000). A theory refers to a cohesive set of assumptions that act as a description of a fact (Naidoo and Wills, 2000). Theories are also a set of organized arrangement of important principles that give a base for clarifying certain existence (Naidoo and Wills, 2000). Therefore, health promotion theories refer to a set of principles used to describe and clarify certain occurrence in individual’s health. A model is a representation of a theory. Models provide a plan for exploring and or controlling a phenomenon as well as offer a channel for theories usage. A model does not provide an explanation for the principles, but only presents them the way they appear in the theory, which makes an individual to reflect the stated principles (Naidoo and Wills, 2000). 2.0. Beattie’s health promotion model This health promotion model is a complicated logical model that recognizes that health promotion is set of extensive cultural and social exercise (Wills and Earle 2007). The model provides the ability to examine current and former health promotion approaches and individuals roles in health promotion. Wills and Earle (2007) also indicate that the model also provides the resource to construct existing routine and to create new approaches for productive promotion within the society. This model consists of four shapes, grouped in two levels. The groups signify the different methods in which personalities, government, and professionals take part in promotion methods, legislative procedures, individual counseling, community advancement, and conducting medical promotion. The four shapes show the methods of interference- referred to as a top down tactic, or collaborated- which is known as a bottom up method, and center of involvement which can be distinct or communal (Thomas and Stewart 2005). Medical care professionals together with governments mainly work in an authoritative or top down approach, through the governmental and other promotion methods. At this level, recommendations and advice are presented. The purpose of this is to protect people and societies. However, both of these methods may dis-empower a person, which in turn leads to limited transformation (Thomas and Stewart 2005). I selected this model because it provides the four basic activities in health promotion which entail personal attributions like working with doctors on food, individual plans and objectives (Bobbitt and Dabholkar, 2001). 2.1. Strengths and weakness As seen in the argument of Bobbitt and Dabholkar (2001), the staff members and the government usually work in an authoritative manner to implement policies. This can in turn lead to limited change among people (Bobbitt and Dabholkar, 2001). However, the theory has its strength as it provides recommendations to improve healthy practices among community members (Bobbitt and Dabholkar, 2001). It can be noted that this model fits very well in the contemporary political situations; gradually active societies create sustainable modifications to control health disparities. Actual developments are likely to happen with the use of ‘bottom up’ method. The ‘top down’ methods use in this model aims at providing information about unhealthful behaviors and danger, or to inflict transformation at state level. The purpose of the other approach (bottom up) method is to educate people and / or societies to come up with improved choices that concern their wellbeing (Bobbitt and Dabholkar, 2001). This model also assist in determining the relationship between the knowledge acquired and the issues of power and social control of an individual’s health. The challenge here is that the representation in this model may appear too remote to reality. The difference between authoritative approaches and negotiated approaches is not clear, and they just present polar extremes between the two levels. 2.2. Limitations The foundation of this model is that transformation is a recurring process, and not an occurrence. Those who are developing a change, for instance smokers who need to stop smoking, obese persons who need to lose of weight must be conversant with the fact that the process is a continuous one (Bobbitt and Dabholkar, 2001). These changes move in five steps before an individual changes their behavior (Bobbitt and Dabholkar, 2001). Individuals in this model do not develop systematically in all these steps, and the rate at which individuals move round the cycle is distinctive (Bobbitt and Dabholkar, 2001). For instance, it has been noted that contemplation of smokers can take a long time before an individual changes (Bobbitt and Dabholkar, 2001). 3.0. Trans-theoretical model The model evaluates an individual's willingness to shift to contemporary healthier activities, and provides approaches, or processes of modification to guide the person through the steps of revolution to act and protection (Chenoweth, 2007). The model is presently understood in terms of different dimensions. The center builds, around other aspects and these are the levels of change. The stages represent well-ordered groups along a range of motivational readiness to modify a problematic behavior (Patterson and Nochajski, 2010). Transitions among the levels of change are influenced by a group of self-determining variables referred to as the courses of change (Chenoweth, 2007). The model includes a series of interceding variables. They entail decisional stability, which are the advantages and disadvantages of transformation, self-efficacy, which is the self-assurance in the capability to transform across problematic circumstances, situational desires to get involved in the problematic behavior, and actions, which are precise to the problematic area (Chenoweth, 2007). Psychological cultural environmental economic factors are also included in this area (Chenoweth, 2007). The model states that there is no theory that can account for all challenges faced in the course of behavior change (Chenoweth, 2007). As Chenoweth (2007) continues to indicate, behavior transformation is a process that develops over some time in a system of stages. These stages are stable and unrestricted to change, most individuals are not ready to change, and specific processes and philosophies of change should be highlighted at precise stages to increase efficacy (Chenoweth, 2007). Whitehead (2003) indicates that the theory mainly aims at producing individual transformation and not physical transformation, so interferences are typically limited to the distinct level. Lastly, the model does not recognize that persons with minor behavior change are frequently economically or socially disadvantaged (Whitehead, 2003). I selected the model because it makes use of stages of transformation to integrate procedures and beliefs of transformation from across most important theories of involvement. Behavioral change is a process that unfolds over time through a sequence of stages (Thomas, 2001). The stages of change in this model are stable and free to change as if the long-lasting behavioral risk influences are free to change depending on extent of time. Devoid of planned interferences, people will remain in the initial stages of change. The model does not have inherent motive to progress in all transformational stages (Thomas and Stewart, 2005). 3.1. Strengths and weakness This theory can be indicated to be fallacial since the stages are defined in qualitative terms. It is evident that not all individuals follow the same sequence of change, and the stages of change in this theory are irreversible (Allmark, 2005). The theory also designates the stages of transformation, but fails to present explanations of why changes happen (Allmark, 2005). The theory was initially developed to address to problematic behaviors, and other behaviors may also be reviewed using this theory. The model reflects more on individual behavior transformation in separation from societal and environmental influences (Allmark, 2005). The Trans-theoretical model has been condemned of categorizing human into separate stages (Wills and Earle 2007). They state that an authentic stage representation has three important things: qualitative changes in all the stages, invariant classification of transformation, and no reversibility (Wills and Earle 2007). They also indicate that in his research that the model assumes all of these necessities and that qualitative changes in all stages are assumed because the initial two stages, which are the pre-contemplation and the contemplation stages, which are only dissimilar in their levels of intent, whereas the other levels are advancements of regularity or extent of behavioral implementation rather than transformations in kind. 3.2. Limitations The level of literacy and demographic features may influence the categories of resources people’s need (Thomas and Stewart, 2005). In cases where behaviors are related with educational and socio-economic statuses, it is important to deal with the behavior portrayed in the wider physical and social context (Thomas and Stewart, 2005). The model can be of partial utility among people where actions are dependent on severe external limitations(Thomas and Stewart, 2005).The model stress on governmental, social, and cultural influences that may influence behavior transformation(Thomas and Stewart, 2005).The model also concentrates on addictive conducts not adaptive conducts (Thomas and Stewart, 2005). It is usually difficult to measure behavioral principle at each stage (Thomas and Stewart, 2005). Individuals generally use a section of this model (Thomas and Stewart, 2005).The duration of change is not clear in the model (Thomas and Stewart, 2005). 4.0. Compare and contrast Trans-theoretical model and Beattie’s health promotion model Tannahill (2008) states that trans-theoretical model is a representation of intended change. The model centers on the choice made by an individual. The model contains reactions, understandings, and conduct. This includes support on individual acknowledgment of their problem (Tannahill, 2008). As argued by Jones, Sidell, and Douglas (2002), this model emerged from comparative investigation of psychoanalysis and behavioral transformation theories; the inventers claiming to have unique normal processes of transformation, which are grouped in stages. The model presented practical interference guidance and emerged as a summary of a complex theory of behavior transformation in the medical field (Jones, Sidell, & Douglas, 2002). On the other hand, the Beattie health promotion theory allows people plan and evaluate diverse methods to the promotion of health within the community. The models have been grouped into two aspects the top and bottom in all aspect. Each pattern comprises of an explanation of diverse methods that are conveyed in an authoritative approach (Bartholomew et al., 2006). The theory was the first to be developed in 1966 and it has developed and used in the past years (Bartholomew et al., 2006).The theory was aimed at making people believe that they are at risk, the problem has a serious consequences, and that people can reduce the risk by taking action, which are the perceived benefits (Bartholomew et al., 2006). The changes of the behavior are perceived obstacles as are overshadowed by the advantages, like the action to be taken so as to control or avert infection and not to worsen the disease (Thomas and Stewart, 2005). Individuals need to be exposed to actions that will make them change behavior positively. Lastly, people should be confident in their ability to act and change behavior (Bartholomew et al., 2006). 4.1. The relationship between public health promotion and health education According to Screven and Garman (2007), health promotion is an important component of public health exercise. Public health is an expressive notion of the quantifiable state of an individual’s well-being. It is usually a connected complex range of organizations; the public health association has joined hands in promoting community's health, nationally, internationally, and across many countries (Bartholomew et al., 2006). Public health is the analysis and running of human wellbeing in the bigger society and its environment. Health promotion public health is health education based on a comprehension of health affected by socio-economic, cultural, and individual backgrounds (Seedhouse, 2001). Health promotion has different explanations, interpretations and perceptions. These values depend on a specific motivating standard, as well as providing details on ways of controlling behaviors. It puts a lot of emphasis on societal action, taking care of the causes of health and tackling major issues like disparities in disempowerment and health (Thomas and Stewart, 2005). The main purpose of health promotion is to create a transformation to the sources of ill health instead of focusing on the effects of outcomes of it. It is evident that this is extremely tasking for the medical staffs that experience the effects of detrimental health in their profession (Webster and French, 2002). On the other hand, Macdonald and Bunton (2002) state that public health is a support expression representing all actions aimed at advancing the public’s wellbeing where health promotion provides a major contribution (Macdonald and Bunton, 2002). Other researchers, state that public health is equivalent to a therapeutic representation and is related to deterrent medicine, which emphases on evaluating, controlling and preventing disease (Scott-Samuel and Springiest, 2007). In 1986, the Ottawa chatter was set for the global discussion on this promotion (WHO, 1986). The subsequent Ottawa meetings suggested actions to accomplish better health for individuals by the end of the year 2000. The following approaches were proposed; (WHO, 1986) Developing supportive situations this explains the importance of circumstances for better health, and recommended a socio- environmental method to health promotion, increasing community accomplishment, which compels community liberation and interest in putting priorities, scheming, and applying strategies to attain improved health, and developing individual skills, which helps individual and social expansion through delivering information and improving life abilities. Lastly, Making orientations in health care services, which can be achieved through this promotion, and that the uneven health care resources are offered so as to reduce unequal health care distribution within the society (Scott-Samuel and Springiest, 2007). On the other hand, health education refers to any group of learning skills planned to assist individuals and societies increase knowledge on their individual health, by raising their knowledge or manipulating their outlooks concerning health matters. It also refers to a process where individuals or the general public acquire knowledge concerning their well-being and how to develop their own wellbeing. Several people offer this type of education and there are different approaches to the implementation of health education, centered on different behavioral models (Scott-Samuel and Springiest, 2007). Health education is very important in developing the health of individuals and the entire community (Scott-Samuel and Springiest, 2007). 5.0. The different approaches to health promotion 5.1. Medical approach- primary/secondary/tertiary prevention Scriven (2010) states that the medical approach aims reducing illness and premature death. The approach also targets the entire population or the individuals at risk; and aims at offering initial intervention by offering prevention of inception of disease, like immunization, and inspiring nonsmoking among the smokers. Secondary prevention where they aim at avoiding progression of illness, like screening development of disease is also offered (Patterson and Nochajski, 2010). Tertiary prevention aims at decreasing further infirmity and pain in individuals already in bad health and pain in individuals who are already unwell, for instance, psychoanalysis, patient instruction, and comforting the patients. The approach uses a scientific method like epidemiology. Lastly the approach shed light on prevention and initial detection of illness or disease, which is inexpensive than providing treatment (Patterson and Nochajski, 2010). This approach mainly focuses on the prevention of re-occurrence of disease instead of promoting optimistic health on encouraging optimistic health (Scriven, 2005). The approach assumes the communal and ecological aspects of health and insists on reliance on therapeutic knowledge and agreement with conducts. It also eliminates health choices from the individuals affected; thus, the name, the authoritarian approach (Scriven, 2005). 5.2. Behavior change This model aims at encouraging people to accept healthy actions, which increase well-being or healthiness. Through the model, the wellbeing of the patient is monitored based on the strengths of personalities. In this approach, individuals can create physical developments to their wellbeing by selecting to transform their individual lifestyle (George, 2004). The approach also states that it an individual’s duty to take control of their responsibility, and to take control of themselves (George, 2004). The approach involves a transformation of attitude followed by a transformation of behavior (George, 2004). This approach has the following limitations; decisions related to health promotion are usually very difficult. The decision solely depends on an individual’s readiness to change. There is complicated relationship between people’s behavior and societal environmental factors. Lastly, the behavior portrayed might be a reaction to an individual’s living conditions, which might be the conditions in which this person stays that are beyond personal control for instance, poverty, joblessness among others (Wills, and Earle, 2007). 5.3. Educational approach This approach aims at providing people with informed choices about their healthy behavior, which is achieved by providing knowledge and information, as well as developing the vital wellbeing skills. The approach fails to persuade or encourage transformation in one-way (Naidoo and Wills, 2000). The consequence of ill health is a result of the client’s premeditated choice, which might be unlike the one chosen by health agent (Naidoo and Wills, 2000). In this approach, the behavioral feature aims at assisting clients to come up with decision and develop skills needed for healthful living (Naidoo and Wills, 2000). 5.4. Empowerment This approach enables individuals to identify their personal concerns and improve their abilities and self-assurance. Through the approach individual skills and assurance needed to work upon issues affecting ill health among the individuals are promoted. This approach only uses bottom to up approach instead of top to down approach (Naidoo and Wills, 2000). In this approach, the health sponsor or advocate plays the responsibility of a facilitator instead of an expert in the medical field. They initiate the method, but then leave the client to make their choices. Individuals are observed as identical and have the right to group their individual outline (WHO, 1986). The approach considers health promotion as described in the Ottawa Charter which aims at making people have control of their own health in their lifetime (WHO, 1986). For individuals within the community to be empowered, they need to recognize and appreciate their own incapacities. Most individuals have a strong feeling concerning their living situations, which in turn leads to internal changes within the community (Naidoo and Wills, 2000). The individuals within the community must feel capable of changing the situation by having information, support, and life skills (Naidoo and Wills, 2000). Examples include situations where nurses work together with patients to have an improved health care program, or where teachers work together with their students to improve self- esteem (Naidoo and Wills, 2000). It should be understood that this enfranchisement is a long-term process within the health care setting. It is also very difficult to come up with a conclusion that transformations are a result of individual interventions instead of some other influence. In this approach, results tend to be vague compared with other approaches to health promotion (Naidoo and Wills, 2000). 5.5. Social change Ewles and Simnet (1992) acknowledge that, social change aims at changing the society and not the behavior towards health promotion. It also aims at creating a social environment that would allow health choices to turn out to be available, worth choices and convenient (Naidoo and Wills, 2000). This approach targets the entire community and groups. The approach needs political assistance from the supreme level, like through legal policies, and laws stipulated by the government. It also needs support from the entire public, and the public needs to be informed about social change. Developing helpful activities meant to develop policies that promote healthy social, physical, and economic surroundings. Providing health training: This refers to the planned lessons aimed at facilitating transformations in activities aimed at the set goal, and concerning some type of communication aimed at improving health knowledge, life skills and understanding helpful to the entire community and the individual (WHO 1986) Through health education, several people use health interaction, and this refers to an approach used to provide information to the public concerning health issues. Health interaction provides important medical issues to the public plan obtained through the mass media, as well as other industrial innovations that distribute valuable medical information to the community, raise health awareness on specific features of personal and communal health (WHO, 1986). Several medical institutions, as well as medical staff make use of self-help. Self- help refers to actions acquired by ordinary individuals to collect funds that will be used to encourage, preserve or reinstate individuals’ health or the entire community’s by the use of individual care activities like self-treatment, self-medication, and conducting first aid activities in the social background within the community (WHO, 1986). Conclusion It is important for the community members to consider the two models of health promotion as a way of improving the community’s well-being, as well as the five health promotion approaches mentioned in the essay. References Allmark, P., 2005. Health, Happiness and Health Promotion. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 22 (1). Bartholomew, L.K., Parcel, G.S., Kok, G., and Gottlieb, N., 2006. Planning health promotion programs: An intervention mapping approach (2nd ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bobbitt, L. M., and Dabholkar, P. A. 2001. ‘Integrating attitudinal theories to understand and predict use of technology-based self-service’: The internet as an illustration. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12(5), 423-450. Bosnjak, M., Tuten, T. L., and Wittmann, W. W., 2005. Unit (non)response in web-based access panel surveys: An extended planned-behavior approach. Psychology & Marketing, 22(6), 489-505. Chenoweth, D., 2007. Worksite health promotion (2nd ed.). Champaign IL: Human Kinetics. Ewles, L., & Simnett, I., 1999. Promoting health: A practical Promoting health: A practical Guide , 4th ed. Edinburgh: Ballire Tindall. George, J. F., 2004. The theory of planned behavior and internet purchasing. Internet Research, 14(3), 198-212. Jones, L. Sidell, M. and Douglas, M., 2002. The Challenge of Promoting Health. Exploration and Action. London: Palgrave. Macdonald, G., and Bunton, R., 2002 ‘Health Promotion: Disciplinary Developments’, in Bunton, R. and Macdonald, G. (eds), Health Promotion: Disciplines, Diversity and Developments, 2nd edn London: Routledge. Mittelmark, M., Kickbusch, I., Rootman, I., Scriven, A., and Tones, K., 2008. Health Promotion Encyclopedia of Public Health. London: Elsevier. Naidoo, J., and Wills, J., 2000. Health promotion: foundations for practice (2nd ed.). Baillière Tindall. Patterson, D. A., and Nochajski, T.H., 2010. ‘Using the Stages of change model to help clients through the 12-steps of Alcoholics Anonymous’. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 10(2), 224-227. Scott-Samuel, A., and Springett, J., 2007. ‘Hegemony or Health Promotion? Prospects for Reviving England’s Lost Discipline’, Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, 127(5), 210–13. Scriven, A., and Garman, S., 2007. Promoting Health: Global Perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Scriven, A., ed. 2005. Health Promoting Practice: the contribution of nurses and Allied Health Professionals. Basingstoke: Palgrave. -------- 2010. Promoting Health: a Practical Guide (6th ed.). Edinburgh: Balliere Tindall/ Elsivier. Seedhouse, D., 2001. Health: The Foundations for Achievement, 2nd edn. Chichester: John Wiley. Tannahill, A., 2008. ‘Health promotion: The Tannahill model revisited’. Public Health 122, 1387-1391. Thomas, C., 2001. ‘Public understanding and its effect on recycling performance in Hampshire and Milton Keynes’. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 32 (3/4), 259–274. Thomas, S. and Stewart, J., 2005. ‘Optimising health promotion activities’. Journal of Community Nursing 19(1), 9-12. Webster, C., and French, J., 2002 ‘The Cycle of Conflict: The History of the Public Health and Health Promotion Movements’, in Adams, L., Amos, M. and Munro, J. (eds), Promoting Health: Policies and Practice. London: Sage. Whitehead, D., 2003. ‘Nursing theory and Concept development or analysis. Evaluating health promotion: A model for nursing practice’. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 41(5), 490-498. Wills, J. and Earle, S., 2007. ‘Theoretical perspectives on promoting public health’, in Earle, S., Lloyd, C. E., Sidell, M. and Spurr, S., Theory and research in promoting public health. London: Sage / The Open University, Milton Keynes. World Health Organization, 1986. The Ottawa Charter for health promotion. Geneva. Read More