The Community Health Promotion Handbook: Action Guides to Improve Community Health

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erica Barrett ◽  
Alyssa Easton
2017 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 142-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph E. Iuliano ◽  
Karen Lutrick ◽  
Paula Maez ◽  
Erika Nacim ◽  
Kerstin Reinschmidt

1998 ◽  
Vol 76 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas M. Wickizer ◽  
Edward Wagner ◽  
Allen Cheadle ◽  
David Pearson ◽  
William Beery ◽  
...  

1996 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 282-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Stokols

Health promotion programs often lack a clearly specified theoretical foundation or are based on narrowly conceived conceptual models. For example, lifestyle modification programs typically emphasize individually focused behavior change strategies, while neglecting the environmental underpinnings of health and illness. This article compares three distinct, yet complementary, theoretical perspectives on health promotion: behavioral change, environmental enhancement, and social ecological models. Key strengths and limitations of each perspective are examined, and core principles of social ecological theory are used to derive practical guidelines for designing and evaluating community health promotion programs. Directions for future health promotion research are discussed, including studies examining the role of intermediaries (e.g., corporate decision-makers, legislators) in promoting the well-being of others, and those evaluating the duration and scope of intervention outcomes.


1992 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 110-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael von Korff ◽  
Thomas Wickizer ◽  
Jennifer Maeser ◽  
Penny O'Leary ◽  
David Pearson ◽  
...  

Purpose. The purpose of this study is to identify the kinds of community organizations community leaders consider important for community health promotion efforts. Design. Key informants were identified by reputational sampling of organizations relevant to community health promotion. Key informants were asked to list organizations they considered important for community health promotion. Differences in identified organizations were compared across informants from seven urban, five suburban, seven rural, and three Native American communities, with significance evaluated by chi-square tests. Setting. This survey was conducted in 22 Western U.S. communities comprising the intervention and control communities of the Community Health Promotion Grants Program of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Subjects. Key informants (N = 184) from community organizations, identified using a reputational sampling technique beginning with the health department, were interviewed by telephone. Measures. Key informants listed organizations considered important for community health promotion in five areas: adolescent pregnancy, substance abuse, tobacco use, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. Results. Informants frequently identified the health department (mentioned by 78% of informants overall), schools (72%), governmental agencies (55%), hospitals (47%), health clinics (42%), churches (33%), and newspapers (32%) as important. Organizations more prominent in urban and suburban areas than in rural and Native American areas included television stations, health-related private nonprofit organizations, substance abuse treatment centers, and colleges. Private physicians were frequently identified in rural areas (44% of informants). No more than one of the 25 informants in the Native American communities identified business organizations, private physicians, information/resource centers, senior citizen organizations, or community coalitions as important in their areas. Conclusions. Communities differ in the kinds of organizational resources available for community activation. These differences may need to be considered in planning community-based health promotion programs.


1996 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 687-688
Author(s):  
C D'ARCY J HOLMAN ◽  
WENDY H ODDY ◽  
BILLIE CORTI ◽  
ROBERT J DONOVAN

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document