MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2072210359 · doi:10.4103/0970-0218.40870

Develop advocacy for public health

2008· article· en· W2072210359 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Manmeet Kaur

Notice bibliographique

RevueIndian Journal of Community Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiquePublic Health Policies and Education
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPublic healthEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceBusinessMedicineNursing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

“Indian Health Ministry Bags US Award for Health Promotion and Tobacco Control” - this interesting headline appeared two years ago in Indian Health News. Immediately after this, American Cancer Society declared that health ministry of India “is a model to which other nations may aspire.” Persistent efforts of the ministry on national tobacco control legislation and for the leadership Indian delegation provided at the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control(1) is really praiseworthy. Advocacy efforts are building and shaping the social and political climate against tobacco in India. Similar advocacy efforts are also needed for strengthening other disease prevention programs. First and foremost step in the process of advocacy is identification of problem and there is no denying the fact that health professionals are expert in recognizing the health problem. They are also best at reviewing literature to collect evidence for solving the health problem. However, they often fail to communicate the solution to the public and to the politicians. To be an effective public health professional, sharing of knowledge with public at large is as important as gaining of knowledge. Therefore, health professionals need to advocate for the evidences. World Health Organization defines advocacy for health as “a combination of individual and social actions designed to gain political commitment, policy support, social acceptance, and systems for a particular health goal or program”.(2) It emphasizes responsibility of health professionals as advocates of health at all levels in society. It is though paradoxical that health professionals still relate themselves to treatment of the disease rather than to prevention of the disease, whereas their role as defined in primary health care relates more to disease prevention. It may be argued that advocacy requires technical know how, evidence based information, identification of stakeholders and opponents. It is believed that rather than devoting their time on advocacy, doctors have bigger things to do; most important of all is ‘saving lives’. Only this can not be the end of the role of a health professional. Political, economic, socio-cultural, behavioral, environmental, and biological factors affect public health. Advocacy aims at making these conditions favorable for health. Therefore, the challenge before all health professionals is to enter into the arena of health advocacy. Health professionals often remain aloof from advocacy considering that policies and decisions on public health issues are the responsibility of politicians and bureaucrats. Should health professionals not approach political leaders to advocate that health posts should be closer to the community? Of course yes, health professionals have to consider community not as a passive receiver of services but as a stakeholder. And they are not only service providers but are also health advocates. Advocacy and lobbying can not be left to the market forces. Along with the need of advocacy one needs to understand and recognize that the sustainability and effectiveness of any program can be enhanced by the commitment of policymakers. Seeking such commitment is an important step in planning and launching any health strategy. There are examples from Israel and Canada where nutrition and tobacco control movements have been successful due to effective advocacy and behavior change communication.(3) It can not be denied that the health professionals collect and share knowledge within their own profession but find it difficult to hold advocacy meetings with the community or with the politicians. They are good at holding formal meetings using technical terms, while advocacy demands informal meetings with stakeholders using simple non technical terms. To make national health programs responsive to the health needs of the community, health professionals require opening dialogue with the political leaders, the policy makers, and the community. Holding advocacy meetings with stakeholders is an important step to create policy environment. Instead of limiting the discussions within the elite professions, civil servants and the government, it is important to involve civil society starting with the informal meetings with the Non-Governmental Organisations to take into account the policy options. Then, the debate can move on to formal meetings with other stakeholders like politicians and bureaucrats. This is the right time that health professionals take the role of a health advocate to build public opinion. They should also approach media for advocacy using mass media and new technologies, direct political lobbying, social mobilization, and alliance building etc. Chapman characterizes past public health advocacy efforts unplanned. He emphasized that a strategic plan should be adopted after systematic analysis of the public positions of opposing forces.(4) The issues of equity and public good must be debated using media. Health professionals should clarify the doubts associated with the policy and should lobby for generating positive environment. NGOs represent community and can create support for the policies that can be responsive to the needs of people. Health professionals must share the responsibility of advocating public health cause.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,011
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,342
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,998

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0110,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,356
Tête enseignante GPT0,527
Écart entre enseignants0,171 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueIndian Journal of Community MedicineMême sujetPublic Health Policies and EducationTravaux en français237 207