BSHE 500 Take Home Exam 1
The social ecological framework was presented in class as providing many possible avenues for research and program implementation. Using the required readings and lectures, write about the pros and cons of a social ecological framework for understanding health behaviors and designing health promotion programs. Your analysis should lead to a conclusion about the framework.
The social ecological framework comprises of person-focused and environment-focused interventions designed to promote health. The social ecological framework can be used as an ideal tool for addressing a broad range of public health issues and implementing new health promotion programs due to its wide scope of integrating behavioral and environmental changes. Variations of the social ecological approach are presented in the public health literature but the main perspective of this framework centers on certain core themes. These themes are individual/intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional/organizational, community factors, public policy, social structures and globalization (1).
An important advantage of the social ecological model in health promotion is that it can provide a better understanding of how social conditions shape our behaviors. These social determinants of health are critical when designing health promotion interventions and measuring potential impact. In the article by Frieden, he provides a 5-tier pyramid to show the impact of various types of public health interventions (2). According to his article, the base of the pyramid contains interventions with the greatest potential for population health impact, which is represented by socioeconomic factors. He uses the term socioeconomic factors interchangeably with social determinants of health, which he claims interventions that focus at this level are “more effective because they reach broader segments of society and require less individual effort.”
Another variation of the social ecological framework was presented in the article
The social ecological framework comprises of person-focused and environment-focused interventions designed to promote health. The social ecological framework can be used as an ideal tool for addressing a broad range of public health issues and implementing new health promotion programs due to its wide scope of integrating behavioral and environmental changes. Variations of the social ecological approach are presented in the public health literature but the main perspective of this framework centers on certain core themes. These themes are individual/intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional/organizational, community factors, public policy, social structures and globalization (1).
An important advantage of the social ecological model in health promotion is that it can provide a better understanding of how social conditions shape our behaviors. These social determinants of health are critical when designing health promotion interventions and measuring potential impact. In the article by Frieden, he provides a 5-tier pyramid to show the impact of various types of public health interventions (2). According to his article, the base of the pyramid contains interventions with the greatest potential for population health impact, which is represented by socioeconomic factors. He uses the term socioeconomic factors interchangeably with social determinants of health, which he claims interventions that focus at this level are “more effective because they reach broader segments of society and require less individual effort.”
Another variation of the social ecological framework was presented in the article
Cited: 1. Haardörfer lecture, Community-engaged research. 9/30/2014 2. Frieden, T.R. “A Framework for Public Health Action: The Health Impact Pyramid,” American Journal of Public Health 100(4) (2010): 590-595. 3. Corona, R., Gonzalez, T., Cohen, et al. “Richmond Latino Needs Assessment: A Community-University Partnership to Identify Health Concerns and Service Needs for Latino Youth”. J Community Health. 34.(2009): 195-201. 4. Dutta-Bergman, M.J. “Theory and practice in health communication campaigns: a critical interrogation,” Health Communication 18 (2) (2005):103-122. 5. Talley Lecture, Interpersonal Theories. 9/16/2014 6. Kreuter, M.W., Kegler, M.C., et al., “The Impact of implementing selected CBPR strategies to address disparities in urban Atlanta: a retrospective study,” Health Education Research 27(4) (2012): 729-741