400238 Policy, Power And Politics In Health Care Provision

Key sociological issues and how they determine a person’s health

Health is influenced by numerous factors which include lifestyle, educational attainment, and housing conditions. Critical sociological issues that affect health include poverty, social class, gender, and ethnicity. Lack of enough resources has a significant impact on both health and health care. According to World Health Organizations, poverty has a substantial effect on health and the ability to buy drugs and receive medical care. It makes people live in indecent dwellings and lack access to clean water and adequate sanitation that makes them ill. Poor living conditions and crowded places result in the spread of communicable diseases such as tuberculosis (Mansfield & Novick, 2012).

Gender is the collectively established roles and attributes that a community regards as suitable for men and women (World Health Organizations). Both gender differences and gender inequalities influence health and access to healthcare. Males and females have different roles in the society. Girls and women encounter the majority of the health disparities which makes them more vulnerable to illnesses. They face health inequalities because they are often not in a position to access education and paid labor which can help them enhance their accessibility to healthcare amenities (Raj, 2011).

There is an apparent interrelationship between social class and health. Social class affects access to quality health care, adequate nutritious food, and education which influences the health of a person. People in high social class groups have sufficient resources to purchase quality food and healthcare services which positively impacts on their health. Ethnicity also influences health and access to health care. It consists of the characteristic features such as language and religion which contributes to a person or group’s identity. In many countries, minority ethnic groups encounter adverse health effects than the whole population (Marmot, Allen, Bell, Bloomer & Goldblatt, 2012).

The difference between the new and old Public Health

Public health aims at prolonging life, advancing health, and preventing disease using organized community efforts. The new public health is an approach that seeks to develop the health status of both the individual and community. It links health promotion to access to health care (Rosen, 2015). It began in the 1970’s with the aim of addressing the socio-determinants of health such as education and socioeconomic status with the objective of balancing the inequalities in health. The old public health, on the other hand, emphasizes mainly on the biological determinants of health such as immunity, genetic factors, and microorganisms.

The new public health pays attention to the primary, secondary and tertiary levels of prevention while the old public health focuses on clinical treatment and accurate methods in the treatment of communicable diseases. The primary prevention aims at preventing injury or illness before it occurs. It entails preventing exposure to hazards that may cause illness or changing behaviors that are unsafe. Secondary prevention works towards lowering the impact of an ailment or injury that has occurred. It is achieved through early detection of diseases and putting in place interventions that may prevent re-injury or re-occurrence. Tertiary level of prevention desires to soften the effect of an ongoing illness or injury by assisting people to manage intricate health problems (Tulchinsky, & Varavikova, 2014)

The new public health focuses on the social and behavioral theories which build on understanding the health behaviors and the context in which they occur. The approaches focus on both environmental and interpersonal factors that influence an individual’s health behavior. The old public health, on the other hand, emphasizes on the biomedical model which focuses on the physical and biological aspects of a disease or illness (Rosen, 2015).

Policy considerations that should be present in a national obesity campaign

The policymakers often identify and put into account issues that are beneficial to them while disregarding others. The health concern is included on the system agenda by the authority in the campaign. Obesity is one of the serious problems that seeks awareness of the officials. Acknowledging obesity as a problem which values recognition with a spot on the general policy plan is a vital move in endorsing the implementation of required systems. Medics and civic society who combine their achievements to support in the communal interest can stimulate scrutiny for an issue like obesity and eventually secure it eminently put on the policy agenda. Accessible information serves as a complication signal, for example, an individual’s low fitness details or may underline an exertion demanding action for instance lack of healthy food accessibility (Walls, Peeters, Proietto & McNeil, 2011).

Utilization of available evidence is essential in the campaign since various methods to obesity prevention have prospective in various environs including countries, cities, local societies, and federations. It is necessary to review which strategies are liable to be adopted given situational elements. Factors like national aura, general belief, and curiosity group pressure can affect the campaign (Wakefield, Loken & Hornik, 2010). Another consideration is to identify the policy solutions to tackle obesity. It needs prudent attention of the full variety of obtainable choices to influence bodily movements’ surroundings and food systems. Building the association and political assistance has a tactless effect on the political field, and it is crucial to the success of the campaign. Patrons can increase support, political will and awareness to develop obesity-related policy by inciting participation from people, local dignitaries and communal groups and public and private operations.

Factors to include in developing a smoke-free environment

Management support is essential to the successful development and enactment of a smoke-free environment in the university. It is paramount to consider the anticipation of managers so that there is an open understanding of the policy’s motive so that they can be enlightened about the new system. It is vital that the managers comprehend the advantages of a smoke-free environment and many options available for decreasing pressure exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, (Hyland, Barnoya, & Corral 2012).The second factor is to observe what’s already progressing in the university and what else is required and who would be affected will rely on the magnitude of my organization and may incorporate coordinating surveys around the university because I will be able to get reviews of the policy that existed.

The third factor is deciding who is going to make it take place. It will demand initiating a commission like occupational health and growth and execution of my policy because this will secure a broad scope of interests are placed and stimulate practical engagement in the development of the new system, (Blakely, Thomson, Wilson, Edwards & Gifford,2010). The last factor is tutoring and the opportunity of rendering education concerning the policy. It will cover training forums for the university students particularly those who have joined university for the first time, informing them about the smoke-free environment policy including the enforcement date, its aim, and details of any smoking ending support. It will help the university fraternity to avoid indiscipline cases and also reduce pressure among the students and employees, (Hyland, Barnoya, & Corral, 2012). It is essential for me to educate the university fraternity that smoke-free environment de-normalizes smoking without demonizing smokers by identifying smoking as a personal behavior that is not compatible with the surrounding.

How interconnected systems are problematic for healthcare policy development

Interlinked systems are supportive, but we occasionally take the interconnection too much without ruminating of the outcomes particularly the expenditure every year (Aanestad & Jensen, 2011). Weak interconnected systems prevent advocacy and propagation of the growth of health care policy development. There is little understanding of how to best develop health system instructions and enhance their openness to development. There is also a slight interpretation of how numerous effectively-aimed plans focused on upgrading health systems and the fact-finding that initiates organizational commitments are overly simple for health systems that are complicated. Insufficiently contemplated intercessions frequently distress the equality within intricate networks to refuse such developments that lead to policy confrontation (Smith & Firth, 2011).

Many interconnected components of the health systems together with their milieu generate robust systems of reaction loops with inconsistence timelines linking the origin and consequence of activity and irregular connections, cumulatively making a dynamic complexity. Directing in interconnected systems is identified by a particular complication lowering the quantity of data use and limits themselves to some solid options when managing. The regular technique in health systems produces enclosed coherence which fails to give a precise portrayal of the real world by leaving possible broader effects of policy development.

The restrictions on intellectual and statement organizing ability of the human understanding means that regularly evaluation formations, on dimensions in systems and the downtimes joining activities and effects are disregarded (Robinson, Radnor, Burgess, & Worthington, 2012).  These leads to a superficial analysis of conditions with the significant vital origin of the problem is either neglected with a misunderstanding of criticism just as the knowledge is accessible, effects of cooperation are trying to deduce and with intercession aimed at abolishing these predicaments leading to unforeseen results and policy defiance.

References

Aanestad, M., & Jensen, T. B. (2011). Building nation-wide information infrastructures in healthcare through modular implementation strategies. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 20(2), 161-176.

Blakely, T., Thomson, G., Wilson, N., Edwards, R., & Gifford, H. (2010). The M?ori affairs select committee inquiry and the road to a smoke-free Aotearoa. NZ Med J, 123(1326), 7-18.

Hyland, A., Barnoya, J., & Corral, J. E. (2012). Smoke-free air policies: past, present and future. Tobacco Control, 21(2), 154-161.

Mansfield, C., & Novick, L. F. (2012). Poverty and Health. NC Med J, 73(5), 366-373.

Marmot, M., Allen, J., Bell, R., Bloomer, E., & Goldblatt, P. (2012). WHO European review of social determinants of health and the health divide. The Lancet, 380(9846), 1011-1029.

Raj, A. (2011). Gender equity and universal health coverage in India. The Lancet, 377(9766), 618-619.

Robinson, S., Radnor, Z. J., Burgess, N., & Worthington, C. (2012). SimLean: Utilising simulation in the implementation of lean in healthcare. European Journal of Operational Research, 219(1), 188-197.

Rosen, G. (2015). A history of public health. JHU Press.

Smith, J., & Firth, J. (2011). Qualitative data analysis: the framework approach. Nurse Researcher, 18(2), 52-62.