The objectives of the week entailed one knowing the definition of the terms motivation, compliance, and adherences. Besides the definition, there were discussions on the concepts and theories of compliance, and motivation as well as other related aspects. Lastly, the one would appreciate the role the health educator play in the healthcare system. From the discussions, several salient issues were evident.
First, compliance, the submission to the recommendation of the medical educator originates from one’s motivation that in turn leads to adherence. Although compliance and motivation have fundamental differences, the two are directly related. Motivation may be a means to an end and measured through behavioral consequences as opposed to compliance that has a direct measurement. But one cannot separate the two because the lack of motivation leads to noncompliance and non-adherence.
Noncompliance places the patient under avoidable risks that may increase medical expenditure. The medical cost grows for both the government and the individual. Besides that, it can lead to other social problems such as reduced production in workplaces as the affected people take sick offs or have their production reduced significantly due to the disease. It follows that educators can use more persuasion using empirical data to motivate the clients to adhere to guidelines set and achieve the set goals. The result must be tangible to motivate the clients to keep adhering to a guideline (Frank, Cho, Heiby, and Lahtela, 2006, p. 509).
Why would patients be noncompliant? Noncompliance may result from lifestyle issues, social and economic status. There seems to be little research on the cultural and religious aspects of dissent. Cultural issues may affect the way one perceive some health conditions while the religious affiliation may influence one's ideas on treatment. Carter and Kulbok (2002) asserted that researchers exclude some populations in motivational research and, as a consequence, there is little understanding why they take health risks.
Although motivational incentives involve the personal attributes, environmental influence, and learner-tutor relationship, one’s social and economic status significantly affects one's motivation. The axioms of motivation such as the state of optimum anxiety may result from an individual’s economic welfare. It is evident that the ability to pay for healthcare may influence how one reacts to bad news on a condition that needs a lot of resources to manage. It follows that the educator needs to know the source of excess anxiety and address it other than assuming the news are the cause of the over-reaction.
Besides, one sets goals depending on his or her abilities. Therefore, at time one may set goals that are unrealistic because of the inability to find means and ways of achieving the realistic goals. Assessment of the levels of motivation is entirely dependent on the educator. The use of subjective and objective mean comes in handy. However, it is critical that the teacher first addresses possible basis that may affect his or her judgment. Subjectivity can give an incorrect state of the client leading to wrong decisions.
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation work in a synergetic manner (Reinholt, 2006). It is quite difficult to influence one’s motivation especially if there is no internal motivation to achieve the goals and objectives. However, an enabling environment can trigger one to action. Fundamentally, learning has to begin at a point of realizing and acknowledging a potential problem. From this point of view that a person contemplation how to solve the problems leading action, maintenance, and eventually termination after achieving the goals. The educator may trigger the realization of the problem because people may not be aware of how severe some conditions may be and, therefore, do not classify them as problems. Ethics are paramount when handling clients. What are the ethical considerations for healthcare educators?
References
Carter, K. F., & Kulbok, P. A. (2002). Motivation for health behaviours: A systematic review of the nursing literature. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 40(3), 316–330.
Frank M. T., Cho S., Heiby E. L., and Lahtela L A., (2006). The Health Behavior Schedule-II for Diabetes Predicts Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy Volume 2, No. 4, 2006. Retrieved on January 26, 2016 from http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bct/2/4/509.pdf&productCode=pa
Reinholt M. (2006). No More Polarization, Please! Towards a More Nuanced Perspective on Motivation in Organizations. Retrieved on January 26, 2016 from http://openarchive.cbs.dk/bitstream/handle/10398/7456/smg%202006-49.pdf?sequence=1
