Health Promotion Strategies for Smoking Cessation

wellness promotional material Strategies for bullet CessationDrawing on appropriate literature, provide a sarcastic analysis of the application of wellness advance philosophies, principles and speak toes underpinning populace health entrust in parity to a relevant thing (e.g. any public health policy in the UK)The chosen public health topic is smoke. The student has selected this subject because it is a authentic issue of particular relevance because of the prohibition to premises becoming stinkpot- free if they argon open to the public, overdue to be executed in England in July 2007 (Health Act 2006). Smoking is in addition an important topic because it has been identified as the single most signifi poopt public health problem in the UK (Royal College of Physicians 2000) approximately 114,000 smokers in the UK gnarl as a result of weed ( carry through on Smoking and Health 2005). The treatment of heater- relate conditions costs the National Health Service (N HS) up to 1.7 billion per year with an estimated cost of 1.7 million to British industry either year as the result of lost working hours caused by hummer- colligate illness (Gommans 2005).According to Tannahill (1985) health publicity is a broad plan which encompasses health education and health barroom. Health education refers to working with groups and soulfulnesss to put forward healthy behaviours, whereas health hold backion refers to strategies which prevent ill- health much(prenominal) as immunisation.Public health is defined asThe science and art of preventing disease, prolonging flavour and promoting health through organised efforts of society (Acheson 1988)This definition implies a incorporated orgasm however public health has been criticised as being health checkly dominated (McPherson 2001).Philosophies of health promotion provide a framework for exploring our rationale and justification for wanting to change health- related behaviour. Seedhouse (2002) refers to health promotion as a moral endeavour in opposite words health professionals be required to make appreciations near if, how and when to intervene in relation to the health behaviours of patients, clients and service users, taking into ac think individual pick ups and priorities. In some cases health behaviours affect non only the individual just others, also this applies to the cause of secondary smoking, for example. Taking into account the secondary effects of health behaviours may impact upon the moral endeavour of health professionals and health policy makers. Moral judgements underpin the work of health professionals the student recalls an resultant when a lady jump ond 100 who had smoked all of her self-aggrandizing life and who clearly did not shed long to live, asked to be helped to smoke a cigarette. This simple act gave her pleasure and it seemed irrational and unkind not to answer to her request. Moral judgements are not always straightforward.Philosophic al principles applicable to health promotion include logic the development of reas bingled crinkle (Naidoo and Wills 2000a). Our arguments for changing health-related behaviour are secern- based involving for example, the type of statistics near smoking highlighted in para 1 of this summon. in that location is a walloping corpse of evidence which subscribe tos the argument that smoking is damaging to health and yet, as discussed yet on (para.2, p.4), it give the bounce be seen that individuals do not always respond to logical reasoned argument in relation to modifying health- behaviours.Epistemology, another philosophic principle, is touch with the debate about truth, in this case exploring what health truly means. There are different models of health including the medical and favorable models. The medical model is concerned with the categorisation of illness and disease and with specific medical interventions given by the expert (the health professional) to the patien t, who has traditionally been a peaceful recipient of this expert advice and intervention. A brotherly model of health involves a broader interpretation of health which is influenced by a range of determinants, such(prenominal)(prenominal) as age, gender, socioeconomic factors, education and environment. Within this model, strategies to improve health status imbibe a wider perspective than the medical model, seeking to address the aforementioned determinants. In relation to health promotion, the medical model might not take for into amity, factors which affect the individuals behaviour such as their socioeconomic status. There is evidence that smoking behaviour is to a greater extent prevalent among more than disadvantaged socioeconomic groups (Gulliford et al 2003). It is important therefore to take into consideration this and other, factors when developing health promotion strategies and not to reduce the issue to one of the endowment and receiving of instruction with an assumption that behaviour pass on be limited as a result.Health promotion philosophies are also concerned with ethics. The theory of ethics is divided into two main categories deontological and consequential. Deontology is concerned with our handicraft to be nourish according to a set of moral principles. On page 1, paragraph 5, the issues/ dilemmas involved for health professionals in making moral judgements, were referred to. consequential ethics are based on the premise that a judgment about whether an action is right or wrong is dependent on its end result, in other words whether the ends justify the means. This has some provoke implications for health promotion. Further on (p.4) some health promotion strategies are discussed including a debate about the use of legislation, i.e. enforcement, to bring about health- related behavioural change. As stated earlier (para.1, p.1) this issue is of particular relevance to smoking. The argument for enforcement is that the end result of reducing smoking behaviours and resultant advance in health status as well as nest egg made to the cost of health electric charge, justifies the prohibition legislation.Broad forward motiones to health promotion reflect the models of health referred to (para. 2 on this page) and are categorised by Naidoo and Wills (2000b) as medical/ preventative behavioural change educational empowerment and societal change. Within the medical approach there are troika takes of prevention primary, secondary and tertiary. To apply these specifically to smoking the primary level aims to prevent smoking behaviour before it begins, the secondary level is concerned with preventing the regaining of a smoking- related illness or disease by encouraging the patient to give up smoking and the tertiary level is about promoting quality of life within a chronic condition such as diabetes, in which case the message would be that the individuals quality of life would be optimised if they do not smoke. The behavioural approach focuses on lifestyle issues (Laverack 2004) Emphasis is placed upon the individuals certificate of indebtedness for health which does not take into account factors outwith the individuals discipline and as such, this approach has been criticised for being victim- blaming (Tones and Tilford 2001), shifting responsibility away from the governing body for example, in relation to individual health status.The educational approach is slight about placing responsibility on individuals in relation to their health- related behaviours and more about giving information and facilitating batch to make informed choices about their lifestyle choices. This approach relates to the rational- empirical dodge described encourage on (para. 2, p.4) as it is based on the assumption that giving people information bequeath lead to attitudinal and behavioural change. As will be seen, this does not always happen. This approach is also dependent on a level of concordance from th e individual, for example a commitment to attend regular sessions as part of an educational programme.The empowerment approach reflects the normative- re-educative strategy described further on (para. 4, p. 4) and entails giving people the means to have increased swear over the determinants that affect their health status. This involves community participation, a collective approach which is embedded within the philosophy of public health. According to Laverack (2004) there can be different interpretations of what constitutes a community. We tend to deal in terms of a geographical community a locality. It might be more effective in health promotion terms to think of a community as a group with shared characteristics, such as young people. The reality of community participation is that it tends to be more evident among communities who are educated and higher up the socioeconomic scale. state who are disadvantaged are less lilkely to be motivated to enrol in health- related progra mmes- they may feel marginalised and are preoccupied with the issues that their bunk presents, such as concerns about housing and income health promotion is not viewed as a priority, and smoking might be used as a means of helping them to cope with adversity (Hanson Hoffman 1998).This leads onto the notion of the social change approach. This is quite a complex concept that involves health promotion initiating and driving social change in order to improve conditions that are conducive to health (Erben et al 2000). mixer change would involve making the sorts of improvements that would place health issues more firmly on everybodys agenda. There are many factors that contribute to social change such as legislation and shifts in ideas about codes of behaviour. For example, attitudes about sexual behaviour have changed over the years, contributing to health issues such as increased relative incidence of sexually transmitted disease and a rise in young pregnancies (Measor et al 2000). There is some indication that social attitudes to smoking have changed (Moonie 2005) which is arguably, a positive development some smokers report that they feel manage social pariahs The social change approach is underpinned by an ac familiarityment of the complexity of what influences health- related behaviours and can be linked to the social model of health, discussed in para. 2, p.2.Specific health promotion methods are quite diverse including giving information in a didactic manner, for example via talks to large groups lobbying local health and Government authorities making use of the corporation media (for example there is currently a television information advert about the early signs of myocardial infarction) working with groups teaching social or life skills that are related to health status publicity events, e.g. health fairs facilitating community groups enforcing health regulation one to one advice and education networking and liaising with other workers instructing on specific techniques, such as self-administration of insulin facilitating self help groups and change health promotion by the provision of support services such as childcare and interpreting facilities (Naidoo and Wills 2000c). Most of these methods can be adapted for use with smoking cessation.The change strategies framework by Bennis (1976) can be applied to health behavioural change and is of particular relevance to anti- smoking legislation. It includes three strategies for take about change which are based on different assumptions about military personnel behaviour, and which, when applied to health promotion, involve three distinctly different approaches. The first strategy (rational- empirical), is based on the guesswork that knowledge is power. Within this strategy it is assumed that an individual will modify their health- related behaviour in response to receiving reliable and valid information. For example, if the government or a health professional issues advice ab out the dangers of smoking, the individual should reduce or cease their smoking habit. It is well- known that this often does not happen even some health professionals smoke, despite their level of knowledge about the dangers (McKenna 2001). The reasons for this are usually related to dependence. It is also possible that human beings adopt Freudian mental defence mechanisms, which are maladaptive lintel strategies used (in this instance) to circumvent evidence of the negative consequences of a health- related behaviour, such as smoking. These include denial, intellectualisation (which involves citing contradictory evidence), or rationalisation, among others (Lupton 1995). Resorting to these defences can profane the power of knowledge and evidence, however valid and reliable it is.The second strategy (power- coercive) involves the use of legislation and policy change in order to enforce health- related change. A good example of this is the anti- smoking legislation referred to in p aragraph 1, page 1. There is some evidence to demonstrate that no- smoking policies do have the effect of reducing smoking behaviour (Brigham et al 1994). There has been criticism of the legislation as it is seen by some as an infringement of the individuals right to choose. all the same this view is countered by the argument that the health of non- smokers can be adversely affected by cigarette smoke, and these people have the right to be protected (HM treasury 2004). It appears that many non- smokers feel that they should be safeguarded from the effects of passive smoking (Pilkington et al 2006).The first two strategies adopt a top- down approach whereas the one-third strategy (normative- re-educative) is based on the assumption that an individual is more apparent to change their health- related behaviour if they have had involvement in bringing about the change if they feel empowered. This approach underpins some of the health promotion strategies referred to in para. 1 of th is page for example facilitating community groups. However as discussed earlier (para. 2, p.3), it seems likely that community participation and empowerment might be of limited value within certain groups, such as people who are disadvantaged or marginalised.In conclusion, it appears that a multi- faceted approach motifs to be adopted in order to address health- behaviours which are harmful to health, in this instance smoking. The starting point is that there is plus evidence that smoking is harmful to health, and can lead to premature death, as cited in para.1, p.1. The question of whether we have the right to choose to smoke can be challenged because of the evidence- base that demonstrates that smoking can affect the health of others (para. 3, p. 4). However it is important to recognise that people who smoke need adequate support and resources in order to be able to stop. There is existing evidence that legislative and policy change can reduce smoking behaviours (para. 3, p.4) a nd it will be interesting to see the outcomes of the current legislation (para. 1, p. 1). However, smokers also need clear, unambiguous messages about the effects of smoking, consistent support from health professionals and friendly information about smoking cessation services (Kerr et al 2006).ReferencesAcheson D. freelancer Inquiry into Inequalities in Health Report. London Stationery Office 1988.Action on Smoking and Health Factsheet No. 2. Smoking Statistics Illness and Death. ash 2005.Bennis et al The Planning of Change Holt Rinehart and Winston 1976Brigham J, Gross J, Stitzer M and Felch L do of a restricted work-site smoking policy on employees who smoke. Am J Public Health. 84(5) 1994 pp. 773778.Department of Health. Health Act 2006. Part 1 Chapter 1. 2006.Erben R, Franzkowiak P and Wenzel E. People empowerment vs. social capital from health promotion to social marketing. Health Promotion ledger of Australia. 9(3) 2000 pp. 179-182Gommans J, Bunton J and MacDonald G. Hea lth Promotion second Edition. Routledge. 2005. p.189.Gulliford M, Sedgwick J and Pearce A. Cigarette smoking, health status, socio-economic status and access to health care in diabetes mellitus a cross-sectional survey. BMC Health Service Research 2003 pp. 3 4.Hanson Hoffman. Recovery from Smoking Second Edition Quitting with the 12 Step swear out Revised Second Edition. Hazelden. P.1Kerr S, Watson H, Tolson D, Lough M and Brown M. Smoking after the age of 65 years a qualitative exploration of older current and former smokers views on smoking, stopping smoking, and smoking cessation resources and services. Health and Social Care in the Community. 14(6) 2006 pp. 572-582,Laverack G. Health Promotion Practice Building charge Communities. wise publications. 2004. pp. 21, 22, 44.Lupton D. The Imperative of Health public health and the regulated body. clear-sighted Publications. 1995. p. 111.Mckenna H, Slater P, McCance T, Bunting B, Spiers A and McElwee G. Qualified nurses smoking prevalence their reasons for smoking and desire to quit. journal of Advanced Nursing. 35(5). 2001. pp.769-75McPherson K. Public health does not need to be led by doctors for. BMJ. 30 322(7302) 2001 p.31596.Measor L, Tiffin C and miller K. Young Peoples Views on Sex Education Education, Attitudes and Behaviour. Routledge 2000. p.4.Moonie N (Ed.) GCE AS train Health and Social Care Double Award Book. Harcourt Heinemann. 2005. p.29Naidoo J. Wills J. Health Promotion foundations for practice (2nd edition). London, Baillire Tindall 2000. pp. 113Pilkington P, Gray S. Gilmore and A. Daykin N. Attitudes towards second hand smoke amongst a highly exposed workforce survey of London casino workers. Journal of Public Health. 28(2) 2006 pp.104-110Royal College of Physicians. Nicotine addiction in Britain A report of the tobacco plant Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians. RCP 2000.Seedhouse D. Ethics the heart of healthcare. Second Edition. flush toilet Wiley and Sons.. 2002. Ch apter 2Tannahill A What is Health Promotion? Health Education Journal 44(4) 1985 pp. 167-8Tones K and Green J Health Promotion Planning and Strategies. Sage Publications. 2004. p. 16.Tones K and Tilford S. Health Promotion effectiveness, efficiency and equity. Nelson Thornes. 2001. p. 28.Total word count 2752