Article Citation:Michael P. O'Donnell (1986) Definition of
Health Promotion. American Journal of Health Promotion: Premier
Issue, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 4-5.Publisher's WelcomeDefinition of
Health PromotionMichael P.O'Donnell,M.B.A., M.P.H.First Page
Preview:
Michael P. O'Donnell, M.B.A., M.P.H., is Publisher of the
American Journal of Health Promotion and Director of Health
Promotion and Wellness at Beaumont Hospital, in Royal Oak,
Michigan.
Cultural sensitivity in public health: defined and
demystified.(PMID:10355471) Abstract Citations BioEntities Related
Articles External LinksResnicow K,Baranowski T,Ahluwalia
JS,Braithwaite RLRollins School of Public Health of Emory
University, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, USA.
[email protected] & Disease[1999,
9(1):10-21]Type:Journal Article, Review, Research Support, U.S.
Gov't, P.H.S.AbstractHighlight TermsGene Ontology(2)
There is consensus that health promotion programs should be
culturally sensitive (CS). Yet, despite the ubiquitous nature of CS
within public health research and practice, there has been
surprisingly little attention given to defining CS or delineating a
framework for developing culturally sensitive programs and
practitioners. This paper describes a model for understanding CS
from a public health perspective; describes a process for applying
this model in thedevelopmentof health promotion and disease
prevention interventions; and highlights research priorities.
Cultural sensitivity is defined by two dimensions: surface and deep
structures. Surface structure involves matching intervention
materials and messages to observable, "superficial" characteristics
of a target population. This may involve using people, places,
language, music, food, locations, and clothing familiar to, and
preferred by, the target audience. Surface structure refers to how
well interventions fit within a specific culture. Deep structure
involves incorporating the cultural, social, historical,
environmental and psychological forces that influence the target
healthbehaviorin the proposed target population. Whereas surface
structure generally increases the "receptivity" or "acceptance" of
messages, deep structure conveys salience. Techniques, borrowed
from social marketing and health communication theory, for
developing culturally sensitive interventions are described.
Research is needed to determine the effectiveness of culturally
sensitive programs.
Social Science & MedicineVolume 67, Issue 12, December 2008,
Pages 20722078
The evolving concept of health literacy Don Nutbeam,Available
online 25 October 2008Choose an option to locate/access this
article:Check if you have access through your login credentials or
your institutionCheck access
doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.09.050Get rights and content
AbstractThe relationship between poor literacy skills and health
status is now well recognized and better understood. Interest in
this relationship has led to the emergence of the concept of health
literacy. The concept has emerged from two different roots in
clinical care and in public health. This paper describes the two
distinctive concepts that reflect health literacy, respectively, as
a clinical risk, or a personal asset. In the former case a strong
science is developing to support screening for poor literacy skills
in clinical care and this is leading to a range of changes to
clinical practice and organization. The conceptualization of health
literacy as an asset has its roots in educational research into
literacy, concepts of adult learning, and health promotion. The
science to support this conceptualization is less well developed
and is focused on the development of skills and capacities intended
to enable people to exert greater control over their health and the
factors that shape health.The paper concludes that both
conceptualizations are important and are helping to stimulate a
more sophisticated understanding of the process of health
communication in both clinical and community settings, as well as
highlighting factors impacting on its effectiveness. These include
more personal forms of communication and community based
educational outreach. It recommends improved interaction between
researchers working within the two health literacy perspectives,
and further research on the measurement of health literacy. The
paper also emphasizes the importance of more general strategies to
promote literacy, numeracy and language skills in
populations.Keywords Health literacy; Health education; Patient
education; Risk
