Community involvement in health promotion: progress or panacea?

There are many arenas within which health promotion may be located. This paper addresses the issues involved in the development of health promotion in one such arena: the community health movement. This movement is complex and dynamic. When reference is made to non-statutory health action, or to community involvement in health, this complexity may not be fully appreciated. There is a tendency for the range of activity to be reduced to its most "visible" form: self-help activity. However, there is more to the community health movement than this. A typology is offered here in which three levels of community-based activity in Britain are identified. These are referred to as self-help groups, community health groups and community development health projects. The breadth and range of this activity reflects the inability of formalized health care to tackle many of the underlying causes of ill-health. Each type of community health activity exists as a declaration of this failure, but some forms of activity may be welcomed by the health professions whilst others may not. In particular the numerically small community development health projects offer a significant challenge to formal health care because they seek to encourage collective health activity by those who are least in control of their own health. It is within the context of developing strategies for health promotion that community health action is most relevant. National and local strategy documents suggest that community involvement is essential for the successful promotion of health. Fully comprehensive participation by community groups signifies a major shift in our perceptions of health and health care. An appreciation of the existing range of health action in communities is an important starting point for medical health professionals engaged in this task.     

Community involvement in health promotion: progress or panacea?

There are many arenas within which health promotion may be located.This paper addresses the issues involved in the developmentof health promotion in one such arena: the community healthmovement. This movement is complex and dynamic. When referenceis made to non-statutory health action, or to community involvementin health, this complexity may not be fully appreciated. Thereis a tendency for the range of activity to be reduced to itsmost "visible" form: self-help activity. However, there is moreto the community health movement than this. A typology is offered here in which three levels of community-basedactivity in Britain are identified. These are referred to asself-help groups, community health groups and community developmenthealth projects. The breadth and range of this activity reflectsthe inability of formalized health care to tackle many of theunderlying causes of ill-health. Each type of community healthactivity exists as a declaration of this failure, but some formsof activity may be welcomed by the health professions whilstothers may not. In particular the numerically small communitydevelopment health projects offer a significant challenge toformal health care because they seek to encourage collectivehealth activity by those who are least in control of their ownhealth. It is within the context of developing strategies for healthpromotion that community health action is most relevant. Nationaland local strategy documents suggest that community involvementis essential for the successful promotion of health. Fully comprehensiveparticipation by community groups signifies a major shift inour perceptions of health and health care. An appreciation ofthe existing range of health action in communities is an importantstarting point for medical health professionals engaged in thistask.     

Family, friend or foe? Critical reflections on the relevance and role of social capital in health promotion and community development

Social capital has been the focus of considerable academic and policy interest in recent years. Despite this interest, the concept remains undertheorized: there is an urgent need for a critical engagement with this literature that goes beyond summary. This paper lays a foundation for a critical dialogue between social capital and health promotion, by examining problematics in the conceptualization and practice of social capital building and linking these to models of community development, a cornerstone health promotion strategy. In so doing, the paper contributes to the existing literature by providing a theoretical exposition and critique of various threads in social capital discourse, and linking these threads explicitly to community development practice. Distinctions between communitarian, institutional and critical approaches to social capital are elaborated, and the relationships between these three approaches and three models of community development-social planning, locality development, and social action-are discussed. The existing social capital literature is then critically examined in relation to three key themes common to both literatures: community integration, public participation, and power relations. This examination suggests that social capital cannot be conceived in isolation from economic and political structures, since social connections are contingent on, and structured by, access to material resources. This runs counter to many current policy discourses, which focus on the importance of connection and cohesion without addressing fundamental inequities in access to resources. This paper posits that approaches to community development and social capital should emphasise the importance of a conscious concern with social justice. A construction of social capital which explicitly endorses the importance of transformative social engagement, while at the same time recognising the potential negative consequences of social capital development, could help community organizers build communities in ways that truly promote health.     

Is social capital the key to inequalities in health?

There has been vigorous debate between the "social capital" and "neomaterialist" interpretations of the epidemiological evidence regarding socioeconomic determinants of health. We argue that levels of income inequality, social capital, and health in a community may all be consequences of more macrolevel social and economic processes that influence health across the life course. We discuss the many reasons for the prominence of social capital theory, and the potential drawbacks to making social capital a major focus of social policy. Intervening in communities to increase their levels of social capital may be ineffective, create resentment, and overload community resources, and to take such an approach may be to "blame the victim" at the community level while ignoring the health effects of macrolevel social and economic policies.     

Missed opportunities? Locating health promotion within multidisciplinary public health

This paper examines the complex interconnections between the development of health promotion and multidisciplinary public health, respectively. Health promotion takes a distinctive interdisciplinary and multiprofessional perspective on health. Historically, it has brought together practitioners from varied disciplinary backgrounds, education and training. It therefore brings real advantages to the public health enterprise, where the goal is to bridge organisations, professions and partners to collectively address key determinants of health in the most effective manner. This paper debates the contribution health promotion has made to the development of multidisciplinary public health over the past 30 years and explores the principles, values, professional bases and practices of both. It is argued that health promotion's contribution to the development of 'the new public health' was critical, while its status and role within multidisciplinary public health remain problematic and unresolved. The nature of these dilemmas is discussed, reflecting on missed opportunities and possible resolutions.     

More physicians in public health: less public health work?

AIM: The object was to assess changes in work priorities in local public health medicine in Norway over the period from 1994 to 1999. METHODS: Two cross-sectional studies were undertaken of physicians working in local public health medicine in all Norwegian municipalities, using a postal questionnaire. RESULTS: Half of the physicians working in public health in 1999 were recruited after 1994. Although the number of physicians working in public health increased from 505 in 1994 to 555 in 1999 (10%) an estimation of the total weekly hours worked decreased by 3.7% from 8,715 hours in 1994 to 8,386 hours in 1999. The vast majority of physicians worked in combined posts (87%), and they reduced their engagement in public health by 2.6 hours on average from 1994 to 1999. The reduction depended on remuneration model, speciality in community medicine, and municipality size. CONCLUSIONS: Local public health in Norway was under pressure in the 1990s. For public health physicians, preventive medicine lost out to clinical work. No promising signals of change in the professional or political framework or in incentives for public health work are seen.     

Hospital health promotion: swimming or sinking in an upstream business?

Healthy People 2000 (HP 2000) calls on hospitals to offer health promotion programs addressing priority health needs of the community. Historically, this upstream initiative has not been present in health care. With the increasing provision of these programs, this case study examined their content to further understand potential public health impact. The health promotion programs offered to the community--both the general public and corporate employees--by an urban Midwest hospital were assessed over 1 year. This article presents a content analysis of 216 programs that was conducted by measuring seven variables: target group, presentation format, fee, health focus, program providers, contact frequency, and activity. Based on this single case study, hospitals appear to be addressing objectives set forth by HP 2000 for community hospitals. Although moving upstream with health promotion, an analysis of program content suggests modifications may be necessary in order to serve as effective interventions for health priorities.     

Global health promotion models: enlightenment or entrapment?

This paper suggests that there is a tendency for health promotion to be located within models that consider health to be a product of a range of forces, with practice itself assumed to comprise a similarly wide range of activities. This paper develops a critique of this tendency that is essentially accommodating, all embracing and 'neutral'. It is argued that this leads to the masking of tensions between the conflicting values contained within the different elements of the models. We suggest that for health promoters, this is neither conceptually appropriate nor practically sensible. These notions are developed in five main stages. We start by defining some of the key concepts in the piece, e.g. the nature of a 'model' and examples of 'global' models. We then examine some of the general reasons why global models are favoured, with respect to the emergence of the UK's strategy for health, The Health of the Nation. The third stage of the discussion identifies and considers, within the British context, professional and governmental factors perceived to have driven this choice. The fourth aspect of the paper will introduce a critique of the use of global modelling. The paper concludes by critically questioning this evolving relationship, and suggests that it will be essentially conservative and unproductive. We end by reviewing the implications for practice and suggesting a useful way forward.     

Reducing health inequalities trough digital options in mental health: A physician’s perspective

This article explores the physicians’ perspective regarding the potential of computerized cognitive behavioral therapies (cCBTs) to overcome inequalities in the context of mental health care provision. The main benefits were related to the ability of cCBTs to provide care in a convenient and efficient manner, enhancing its accessibility. These aspects were perceived more important than cost-effectivity of treatment, which is often claimed to be the key benefit of cCBTs. Age and general acceptance of CBT were the most significant individual-level separators of perceptions, while the sector in which the physician works was seen as the main structural-level separator.     

Ignoring social factors in clinical decision rules: a contribution to health inequalities?

Much work has been published on health inequalities and thehealth-care system. Ignoring the fact that it is risky to summarizea literature review in a single sentence, I would suggest thatmost publications on this subject have focused on the conditionsof primary access to care. Far fewer papers have investigatedthe next step: what happens when patients have had a first contactwith the health-care system. While data are more sparse, they     

HIV-infected health care professionals: public threat or public sacrifice?

The ethical controversy surrounding the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and American Medical Association (AMA) guidelines for restricting the practice of HIV-infected health professionals appears to hinge on whether we give priority to the rights of infected workers or patients. We cannot simply dismiss the concerns of patients as irrational, despite the low risks of transmission. Nor can we avoid the dispute about rights by claiming with the AMA that professionals have obligations to refrain from imposing "identifiable risks," however low, on patients. Nevertheless, allowing the full exercise of patient rights, either by giving patients the opportunity to know the risks they face and to switch providers, or by removing infected providers (compulsory switching), would make each of us worse off. This gives us adequate reason to reject these guidelines and to emphasize other infection control measures.     

Social relations or social capital? Individual and community health effects of bonding social capital

Social capital has become one of the most popular topics in public health research in recent years. However, even after a decade of conceptual and empirical work on this subject, there is still considerable disagreement about whether bonding social capital is a collective resource that benefits communities or societies, or whether its health benefits are associated with people, their personal networks and support. Using data from the 2000 and 2002 Health Survey for England this study found that, in line with earlier research, personal levels of social support contribute to a better self-reported health status. The study also suggests that social capital is additionally important for people's health. In both datasets the aggregate social trust variable was significantly related to self-rated health before and after controlling for differences in socio-demographics and/or individual levels of social support. The results were corroborated in the second dataset with an alternative indicator of social capital. These results show that bonding social capital collectively contributes to people's self-rated health over and above the beneficial effects of personal social networks and support.     

Occupational safety and health promotion: competition or cooperation?

Between 1988-1998 in Germany Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) rivalled with Workplace Health Promotion (WHP). Now that European legislation has influenced modernisation of the German OSH, both can embark on useful cooperation. Safety Services and personnel are required to evaluate risk assessment accurately; the results can be helpful for WHP. Safety communication and workers' participation will explore and ensure new avenues in WHP and--in consequence--scientific knowledge concerning work. This knowledge, in turn, can now support modern OSH.