Introduction to the JPIC issue, Aging in older adulthood: Community-level intervention programming and partnerships providing older adults with community health promotion opportunities

Author(s):  
Faika Zanjani ◽  
Tracey Gendron
2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanie Sims‐Gould ◽  
Thea Franke ◽  
Sarah Lusina‐Furst ◽  
Heather A. McKay

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 239-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Crystal Shannon

AbstractObjectiveCommunity-level disaster readiness is a major component of community health promotion. However, many readiness programs are focused on the response of emergency and health care personnel and not on the preparedness levels of local citizens. This potentially leaves the public unready and unprepared for emergency event response.MethodsA 20-item survey on general states of disaster preparedness was delivered to the residents of a midsized midwestern county. The residents were asked to share their knowledge of local hazards, emergency systems, and personal preparedness.ResultsA convenience sample of 423 residents responded to the survey. Fifty-seven percent (n=241) reported limited personal preparedness. Seventy-six percent (n=321) acknowledged little to no familiarity with residential emergency systems, and 52% (n=220) reported that they did not know how to gain information on public health emergencies, such as pandemic flu and evacuation response.ConclusionsLocal citizens should become educated on the methods to support personal disaster and emergency readiness. Health care and emergency management organizations are encouraged to include these concepts in routine community health promotion activities and to pay special attention to known areas of community vulnerability. Failure to do so creates a population unable to support themselves in the provision of basic health and safety measures. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2015;9:239-244)


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document