Community Empowerment and Health Equity

Author(s):  
Jennie Popay

Empowerment features prominently in public health and health promotion policy and practice aimed at improving the social determinants of health that impact communities and groups that are experiencing disadvantage and discrimination. This raises two important questions. How should empowerment be understood from the perspective of health and health equity and how can public health practitioners support empowerment for greater health equity? Many contemporary definitions link empowerment to improvements in individual self-care and/or the adoption of “healthier” lifestyles. In contrast, from a health equity perspective community empowerment is understood as sociopolitical processes that engage with power dynamics and result in people bearing the brunt of social injustice exercising greater collective control over decisions and actions that impact their lives and health. There is growing evidence that increased collective control at the population level is associated with improved social determinants of health and population health outcomes. But alongside this, there is also evidence that many contemporary community interventions are not “empowering” for the people targeted and may actually be having negative impacts. To achieve more positive outcomes, existing frameworks need to be used to recenter power in the design, implementation, and evaluation of local community initiatives in the health field. In addition, health professionals and agencies must act to remove barriers to the empowerment of disadvantaged communities and groups. They can do this by taking experiential knowledge more seriously, by challenging processes that stigmatize disadvantaged groups, and by developing sustainable spaces for the authentic participation of lay communities of interest and place in decisions that have an impact on their lives.

Author(s):  
Bo Burström

This commentary refers to the article by Fisher et al on lessons from Australian primary healthcare (PHC), which highlights the role of PHC to reduce non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and promote health equity. This commentary discusses important elements and features when aiming for health equity, including going beyond the healthcare system and focusing on the social determinants of health in public health policies, in PHC and in the healthcare system as a whole, to reduce NCDs. A wider biopsychosocial view on health is needed, recognizing the importance of social determinants of health, and inequalities in health. Public funding and universal access to care are important prerequisites, but regulation is needed to ensure equitable access in practice. An example of a PHC reform in Sweden indicates that introducing market solutions in a publicly funded PHC system may not benefit those with greater needs and may reduce the impact of PHC on population health.


2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 392-401
Author(s):  
Maxim Gakh ◽  
Lainie Rutkow

The Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach aims to integrate health into decisions across sectors to address the social determinants of health and enhance health equity. Jurisdictions interested in implementing this approach may seek clarification about how to operationalize it. Public health legal preparedness provides useful lessons for HiAP. While there are important differences between these two areas, there are also critical similarities. These similarities are particularly important because HiAP and public health preparedness are complementary. Law has been essential in advancing public health preparedness by helping to: (1) prioritize planning; (2) allocate responsibility; (3) enhance collaboration and coordination; (4) establish responsive funding; and (5) emphasize the needs of vulnerable populations. Law can be used similarly to advance HiAP.


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 624-633
Author(s):  
Cheryl Holzmeyer

SummaryWhile academic open access, open data and open science initiatives have proliferated in recent years, facilitating new research resources for health promotion, open initiatives are not one-size-fits-all. Health research particularly illustrates how open initiatives may serve various interests and ends. Open initiatives not only foster new pathways of research access; they also discipline research in new ways, especially when associated with new regimes of research use and peer review, while participating in innovation ecosystems that often perpetuate existing systemic biases toward commercial biomedicine. Currently, many open initiatives are more oriented toward biomedical research paradigms than paradigms associated with public health promotion, such as social determinants of health research. Moreover, open initiatives too often dovetail with, rather than challenge, neoliberal policy paradigms. Such initiatives are unlikely to transform existing health research landscapes and redress health inequities. In this context, attunement to social determinants of health research and community-based local knowledge is vital to orient open initiatives toward public health promotion and health equity. Such an approach calls for discourses, norms and innovation ecosystems that contest neoliberal policy frameworks and foster upstream interventions to promote health, beyond biomedical paradigms. This analysis highlights challenges and possibilities for leveraging open initiatives on behalf of a wider range of health research stakeholders, while emphasizing public health promotion, health equity and social justice as benchmarks of transformation.


Author(s):  
John Frank ◽  
Thomas Abel ◽  
Stefano Campostrini ◽  
Sarah Cook ◽  
Vivian K. Lin ◽  
...  

Twelve years have now passed since the influential WHO Report on the Social Determinants of Health (SDoH) in 2008. A group of senior international public health scholars and decision-makers met in Italy in mid-2019 to review the legacy of the SDoH conceptual framework and its adequacy for the many challenges facing our field as we enter the 2020s. Four major categories of challenges were identified: emerging “exogenous” challenges to global health equity, challenges related to weak policy and practice implementation, more fundamental challenges related to SDoH theory and research, and broader issues around modern research in general. Each of these categories is discussed, and potential solutions offered. We conclude that although the SDoH framework is still a worthy core platform for public health research, policy, and practice, the time is ripe for significant evolution.


Author(s):  
Quyen Phan ◽  
Naomi Johnson ◽  
JoAnna Hillman ◽  
Daniel Geller ◽  
Laura P. Kimble ◽  
...  

AbstractObjectiveFor nursing students, competency in population health management involves acquiring knowledge and forming attitudes about the impact of the social determinants of health (SDoH) on health equity. The purpose of this pilot study was to assess nursing students’ knowledge and attitudes about the SDoH and health equity following a focused simulation activity.MethodBaccalaureate nursing students (N=182) participated in a ninety-minute health equity simulation and a post-simulation debrief. Forty-four students (23%) completed a 19-item post-simulation survey.ResultsSixty-four percent of participants reported positive attitude change in working with marginalized populations caused by the SDoH, and 89% reported being knowledgeable about the role of the registered nurse in addressing health equity. Seventy-five percent reported enhanced knowledge of the SDoH through the health equity simulation.ConclusionUsing health equity simulation may be effective in enhancing students’ knowledge, as well as their attitudes in caring for the health of marginalized populations by addressing the SDoH.


2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 258-259
Author(s):  
Angela Zell ◽  
Joan Ilardo ◽  
Adesuwa Olomu ◽  
Cristian Meghea ◽  
Supratik Rayamajhi

Abstract Gaps exist in training medical residents to assess social determinants of health (SDOH) related to chronic conditions. To address the need for better screening, we partnered with two Internal Medicine (IM) residency programs based in Lansing and Flint (Michigan) to pilot the Caring for Patients with Chronic Conditions (CPCC) project. IM residencies train internists with expertise in diagnosis, treating chronic conditions, promoting health through wellness education, and preventing and managing diseases. CPCC incorporated information during didactic sessions that residents could apply during their clinical activities that can influence their current and future clinical practice patterns. Presentations and panels from local community organizations on specific topics were incorporated into the curriculum that address needs of patients age 50 and older. To build on this education, the residents adapted the Office- Guidelines Applied in Practice (Office-GAP) checklist to identify SDOH affecting a patient’s ability to managed chronic conditions. Using this tool: 1) involves resident training; 2) provides a decision support checklist; 3) influences patient activation; and 4) increases provider and patient communication through shared decision making. The checklist includes questions for patient response pertaining to SDOH that prevents them from managing their chronic conditions in addition to the level of action the patient is willing to do. Areas identified are discussed between patient and resident increasing patient activation. Referrals to community-based resources to identified SDOH needs are guided by the clinic’s care manager. The Office-GAP tool is administered during three subsequent visits to ensure that patients actually accessed the community resources.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document