Foundation Concepts of Global Community Health Promotion and Education

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Su-I Hou
Keyword(s):  
Health Promotion ◽  
Community Health ◽  
Global Community ◽  
Community Health Promotion ◽  
Health Promotion And Education

Dance for Your Health: Exploring Social Latin Dancing for Community Health Promotion

2017 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 142-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph E. Iuliano ◽  
Karen Lutrick ◽  
Paula Maez ◽  
Erika Nacim ◽  
Kerstin Reinschmidt
Keyword(s):  
Health Promotion ◽  
Community Health ◽  
Community Health Promotion

scholarly journals Implementation of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation's Community Health Promotion Grant Program: A Process Evaluation

1998 ◽  
Vol 76 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas M. Wickizer ◽  
Edward Wagner ◽  
Allen Cheadle ◽  
David Pearson ◽  
William Beery ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Promotion ◽  
Community Health ◽  
Process Evaluation ◽  
Community Health Promotion ◽  
Grant Program

scholarly journals Translating Social Ecological Theory into Guidelines for Community Health Promotion

1996 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 282-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Stokols
Keyword(s):  
Health Promotion ◽  
Community Health ◽  
Lifestyle Modification ◽  
Ecological Theory ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Future Health ◽  
Community Health Promotion ◽  
Social Ecological ◽  
Health Promotion Programs ◽  
Social Ecological Theory

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.

Community Activation and Health Promotion: Identification of Key Organizations

1992 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 110-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael von Korff ◽  
Thomas Wickizer ◽  
Jennifer Maeser ◽  
Penny O'Leary ◽  
David Pearson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Substance Abuse ◽  
Health Promotion ◽  
Native American ◽  
Community Health ◽  
Rural Areas ◽  
Community Organizations ◽  
Health Department ◽  
Kaiser Family Foundation ◽  
Key Informants ◽  
Community Health Promotion

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.

scholarly journals Epidemiologic Measures of Impact of Community Health Promotion Projects

1996 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 687-688
Author(s):  
C D'ARCY J HOLMAN ◽  
WENDY H ODDY ◽  
BILLIE CORTI ◽  
ROBERT J DONOVAN
Keyword(s):  
Health Promotion ◽  
Community Health ◽  
Community Health Promotion
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document