Introduction
According to the World Health Organization, Health Promotion entails and includes the process through which people are enabled to have more control over their health and the determinants to their health. Essentially, through the health promotion, individuals get the capacity to improve their health. Primarily, health promotion is achieved through the process of creating a public policy, addressing the requirements of health. Such prerequisites may include food security, housing, income among many more other factors that determine the quality of life an individual may live. In the recent past, several attempts have been initiated with the aim of incorporating health promotions in health policies. Behavioral change is considered by many to be the best health promotion strategy (Bader et al. 2007). Most governments have considered introducing health promotion into education in order to reach as many people as possible. Health promotion takes into account the environmental and social factors which have an effect on health. In order to have a better outcome, therefore; it is better to take into consideration interventions that focus on any factor that affects the health of human beings.
There are several reasons that make health promotion an important tool improving the health of individuals. Essentially, health has been termed as being among the key pillars to the society’s development. As such, several attempts are being put in place in order to ensure that human health is kept at the maximum. In improving the day to day well being of human beings, together with promoting preventive approaches to health, health promotion plays a crucial role. One of the direct benefits of the health promotions is that it reduces the burdens that are brought about by injuries and other chronic diseases (Curry et al. 2007). Through initiatives such as these, resources will be put in a better way, spurring economic productivity. Health promotions ensure that such injuries and chronic diseases are prevented. Through this prevention and avoiding using the resources in health issues, other sectors of the economy will directly and indirectly benefit.
Health promotions play a crucial role in ensuring that human beings live freely, without fear of the chronic diseases and other healthy issues. If the governments can strike a good balance between investments and the approaches that promote health, then there are high chances that health reforms will not be needed. Improving the healthcare of people through the prevention of the diseases plays a crucial role in the health sector. One key role that health promotion performs is acting as a focal point and a directive in constructing approaches that tackle the major challenges in the healthcare industry, which are in most cases related to diseases. Important to note is the fact that health promotion is mainly inculcated in the client’s practices. As such, health promotions play a crucial role in giving the clients an opportunity to determine future health (Hale, 2000).
Intervention planning and models
Essentially, interventions are good in health promotion. The health promotion interventions have the ability to change the manner that the individuals behave. Major institutions and organizations are also able to live according to the preventive mechanisms put in place. The manner that individuals and communities behave determines the lives of individuals in the society. By promoting general behaviors that have a direct impact on the health of individuals; it becomes possible to promote health. Essentially, the interventions in most cases tend to discourage or reframe negative behavior that could lead to a decrease in the health standards.
Health promotions work in a number of ways. Importantly, they are geared to ensuring that there is behavioral change in practices that are harmful to the health of individuals. The government stands a chance to reduce the health risks through empowering individuals to have control of their own health. Health promotion is based on the concept that human individuals should be empowered to promote their own health. The health promotion interventions achieve success through empowering the individuals. As such, the health promotion interventions were crucial in promoting individual health in the society (Department of Health. (2004b)).
In general terms, white papers refer to an authoritative report which helps the readers to synthesize and understand an issue. The papers also guide them to making proper decision on a certain issue. Essentially, the white papers are used in two different spheres; the business-to-business marketing and the government. Essentially, the government’s public health white paper ‘choosing health-making healthier choices was a report that responded to the Wanless report on how to secure good health for the entire population. This government’s white paper had as its main aim the desire to reduce healthcare cost and reduce the burdens brought by the chronic diseases. The paper had the aim of instilling a practical approach in reducing the number of health problems through behavior change. Essentially, the white paper set out a number of priorities which were all geared towards changing the lifestyle of people at all levels, both national and local with theoretical knowledge. Some of the priorities of the white paper included: tackling health inequalities, tackling obesity, improving mental health and well being, reducing the number of people who smoke, improving sexual health and finally, reducing consumption of alcohol and encouraging sensible drinking. This assignment mainly deals with one of the above priorities; reducing the number of people who smoke. Through the paper, the necessary health promotions and the health interventions will be analyzed and be proposed for the better results to reduce smoking in and around the school.
This assignment is about designing the necessary health promotion and health intervention in order to reduce the number of students that smoke in St Mary’s University. Smoking is very rampant both in the school compound and outside schools, making it a risky place. Through this practice, even non-smokers are easily convinced by their friends to try smoking. Through such practices, the health of individuals is put in risk as chronic diseases such as cancer end up posing a major challenge to the survival of the students. As such, this assignment will seek to design the relevant and easily use-able approach to reducing this smoking behavior, both in and around the school compound.
St Mary’s University is well known, both academically and in sports. The university has a rich culture of producing students who are fully baked to the job market, making it the envy of the other universities. In sports, the school has a good reputation, particularly in rugby. The tendency of the university to participate fully in several sports makes it well known university. However, all this good reputation is somehow threatened by the negative image created by the students’ smoking habits. As such, it is important and crucial to provide the necessary health promotion to reduce the number of smokers in the institutions. Essential to note also is the fact that the school does not have any formal policy that is formulated to protect the members of the public from the harmful effects of smoking. Research tends to show that most people tend to engage in alcoholism and drug abuse during the sporting activities where smoking is taken as a hobby. This habit is very dangerous since it leads to addiction and, the smokers expose themselves to risky diseases and conditions such as cancer. The school has not put in place any promotion or mechanism to try and educate the smokers on the negative effects of smoking. As such, it becomes important to give the necessary promotion intervention in order to ensure some lives are saved through making them aware of the risks that are brought by smoking.
Intervention
As already argued, St Mary’s college university is notorious for smoking and drug abuse. A walk around the university reveals the many smoking areas that the smokers spend their time. Some of the smoking areas are placed in strategic positions that can easily entice non-smokers to try smoking. For instance, there are smoking zones just outside the campus halls and the library. Despite there being smoking zones, students are allowed to walk freely and smoke in and around the university. In essence, this should not be happening. Smoking ought to be done in the smoking zones. The positioning of the smoking zones also needs to be strategic in order to avoid contaminating the clean air that non-smokers consume. In essence, there should be a school policy discouraging smoking in public places. Such a policy will play a crucial role in reducing the number of smokers and as a result, the health of the individuals will be significantly boosted. Most institutions have warning signs about the effects of cigarettes and drug abuse. However, such are absent in St Mary’s college University. The scenario shows the level of laxity that the school’s administration has in place in order to discourage this destructive behavior. The recent past has seen a number of concerns on the health of the students and the prevalent nature of problematic and excessive smoking practices. The smoking habits, in most cases, put the university minorities such as Christians and athletes in a risky position because of the temptations they are subjected to and the impure environment where they live. Necessary promotion interventions ought to be put in place in order to ensure that this habit is significantly reduced in order to ensure the health of the students is on a safe mode (Ewles, 2003).
Framework of the health gain cycle the intervention will
The relevant promotion interventions, in most cases, depend on the health behaviors and the environment in which they occur. By models, therefore, it is possible to design and evaluate interventions. The behaviors of the community’s residents ought to be fully explored through the various models that may include the physical and social environments.
Measuring the health needs of populations; methods and evaluation policies, programmes, strategies and research
The health promotion has five approaches. These approaches are educational, medical, behavior change, social change, and empowerment. These approaches can be used to create the promotion interventions that are required in St Mary’s College University, In essence; all the above approaches can be employed to form interventions that can reduce the ill-health of the victims. However, some of the approaches have their weaknesses too. The medical approach, for instance, requires compliance and in most cases, ignores the social and environmental factors. As such, it does not focus on positive health. On the other hand, the educational approach educates the individuals and gives them the voluntary option to choose. Education is achieved through several mechanisms that may include group discussions and mass media. One weakness associated with this approach is that it fails to recognize how the voluntary choice is affected by the external factors (McIntyre, 2007).
The approach of behavior change represents the best option when dealing with smoking in the university. Essentially, behavior change recognizes the fact that behavior is multi-factorial. The essence of this approach is to make the victim feel ashamed of their dangerous behaviors and habits that may put the lives of people in danger. Important to note is the fact that this approach requires the victims to internalize the reasons why they ought to stop smoking in order to promote the health levels in the school. Despite the fact that this approach yields changes after a long time, its effects are more permanent when compared to the other approaches that have been discussed. This best promotion intervention should be employed to ensure that the students in Saint Mary’s desist from the smoking behaviors in order to achieve god health.
Smoking and its dangers
Smoking is very unhealthy since it causes many health risks to the smokers. In essence, smoking leads to illnesses and consequently, death. As such, it is essential that people avoid smoking since it has no positive impact to the smokers.
Smoking has many dangers. For instance, excessive smoking increases the risk to having cancer (Northrup, 1957). Lung cancer, lip cancer, mouth cancer and throat cancer are some of the types of cancer that can be brought by smoking. Second, smoking may lead to diseases of the heart and the blood vessels. Cigarettes are full of nicotine, which increases the rate of heart beats and blood pressure. Lung smoking can also cause diseases. Smoking contributes the long-term coughing in chronic smokers, which is unhealthy for individuals. Other risks brought about by smoking may include gastrointestinal diseases, which, if not treated early, may lead to death (Fisher et al. 1917).
Smoking is not hereditary. The biggest reason people smoke is because of the peer pressure they are subjected to in most cases. As such, everybody is a potential candidate to smoke. However, before one starts smoking, it is important for them to know the health risks they will be exposing their bodies to (Wekesser, 1977).
Tobacco packaging warning messages
In common practice, the tobacco packaging warning messages refer to the information about the health effects of products such as cigarettes and other tobacco products. The essence of the information is to make users of the products aware of the negative effects that can be caused by excessive consumption of such products. To a large extent, such information is geared towards increasing the awareness of the public of the negative effects that are associated with smoking. Different countries employ different warnings to emphasize the message. The warning messages are used both when packaging and advertising the products. The general perception is that such warnings have produced a positive response in preventing people from over consuming the products which could affect their health negatively.
References
Bader, P. Travis, H. E and Skinner, H. A. (2007). Knowledge synthesis of smoking cessation
among employed and unemployed young adults. American Journal of Public Health. 8, 1434–1443.
Borders, F. T. Xu, T, K. Bacchi, D. Cohen, L and SoRelle-Miner, D. (2005). College campus smoking policies and programs and students' smoking behaviors. Biomed Central Public Health .74, 1-6.
Curry, S. Sporer, A. K. Pugach, O. Campbell, R. T and Emery, S. (2007). Use of tobacco cessation treatments among adult smokers: National Health Interview Survey. American Journal of Public Health. 8, 1464–1469.
http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4094550. 12.03.2010.
Ewles, L., Simnett, I. (2003). Promoting health: A practical guide. (5th edition). London: BailliereTindall.
Fagan, K. A. Smoking-Cessation Counseling Practices of College/University Health-Care Providers— A Theory-Based Approach. Journal of American College Health.6, 351-359.
Hale, J. (2000). What contribution can health economics make to health promotion.Health Promotion International. 4, 341-348
Huber, L, G and Mahajan, V. K. (2008). Sucessful Smoking Cessation. Disease Management and Health Outcomes. 5, 335-343
Lancaster, T. Stead, L. Silagy, C. Sowden , A.(2000).Effectiveness of interventions to help people stop smoking: findings from the Cochrane Library. British Medical Journal. 321, 355-358.
McIntyre, D. (2005). Smoking. In Key Topics in Public Health: Essential Briefings on Prevention and Health Promotion. (edited by L. Ewles and D. J. Hunter) pp 59-77. London: Elsevier Churchill Livingston
Naidoo, J and Wills, J. (2005). Public Health and Health Promotion: Developing practice.(2nd edition). Edinburgh :BaillièreTindall
National Institure for health and Clinical Excellence. (2000). Smoking Cessation in Young People: Should we do more to help young smokers quit? http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/documents/smokingcessation_youngpeople.pdf. 15.03.2010
Sowden, A. J. ( 2008). Mass media interventions for preventing smoking in young people.Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.4, 1-31.
Wechsler, H. Kelley, K. Seibring, M. Kuo, M and Rigotti, N, A. (2001). College Smoking Policies and Smoking Cessation Programs: Results of a Survey of College Health Center Directors. Journal of American College Health. 5, 205-212.
The way the British smoke. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4709394.stm. 12.03.2010
A.D.A.M., Inc, & Films for the Humanities & Sciences (Firm), Films Media Group (2013). Effects of smoking. New York, N.Y: Films Media Group.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eaves, L. J. (1980). The causes and effects of smoking. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications.
Fisher, G. J., & Berry, E. (1917). The physical effects of smoking: Preliminary experimental studies. New York: Association Press.
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (U.S.) (2004). Health effects of cigarette smoking. Atlanta, Ga.: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health.
National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) (1987). Effects of passive smoking on health. Canberra: Australian Government Pub. Service.
National Health Video, Inc (2000). The physical effects of smoking. Los Angeles, CA: National Health Video.
Northrup, E. (1957). Science looks at smoking: A new inquiry into the effects of smoking on your health. New York: Coward-McCann.
Poswillo, D. E., Alberman, E. D., & Great Britain (1992). Effects of smoking on the fetus, neonate, and child. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sloan, F. A. (2004). The price of smoking. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Wekesser, C. (1997). Smoking. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.
