排序方式: 共有1条查询结果,搜索用时 0 毫秒
1
1.
In this paper, the authors respond on behalf ofa panel representingthe American Public Health Association in the USA to criticismsfrom Canada (by Higgins and Green, two health education researchersfrom British Columbia) regarding the relevance and adequacyof a set of criteria developed in the USA for guiding the developmentof health promotion programs in other developed countries, suchas Canada. The US criteria included a specific focus on riskfactors of disease or untoword health conditions, the characteristicsof an intervention's target group(s), the appropriateness ofan interivention for a given target group or socio-culturalsituation, the optimum use of available resources, and the abilityto evaluate intervention effects. The Canadian criticisms were that these criteria do not allowforor give proper appreciation to the process through which communitiescoalesce around specific problems or issues of importance tohealth, and there is strong exception taken tothe focus by US groups on risk factor reduction.There is a preference among Canadians for the tenn riskcondition, which is defined as local conditionshaving an impact on the health of neighborhoods. Through a series of case illustrations, the Canadian authorsattempt to show the narrowness of the US criteria, thereforearguing for a broader set of criteria which would allow fora programatic focus on community-based health problems whichare not "carefully deflned measureable, modifiable" riskfac tors. In response, the authors of this paper argue that their Canadiancritics have misinterpreted the purpose and utility of the APHAguidelines, therefore over-interpreting the implications ofthese criteria for the specific Canadian community health promotioninitiatives they hoped to evaluate. The conclusion reached isthat the APHA criteria continue to represent a useful approachto guiding the consideration of pos sible health promotion investmentson the part of communities or organizations. 相似文献
1