How The Environment Influences Health By The Due Date Assign

How The Environment Influences Healthbythe Due Date Assigned Respond

How The Environment Influences HealthBy the due date assigned, respond to the discussion question and submit your response to the appropriate topic in this Discussion Area. Respond to the question using the lessons and vocabulary found in the reading. Support your answer with examples and research. Your response should clarify your understanding of the topic. It should be your own, original, and free from plagiarism.

Follow the APA format for writing style, spelling and grammar, and citation of sources. Task Select two social, cultural, and environmental theories. Compare and contrast the two theories. Explain how each theory works to include its benefits and challenges. Describe a public health issue that could be addressed by each theory. (Note: This list of theories mentioned in the text and lectures is not exhaustive.

There are other theories outside of what was mentioned). For the theories you have identified: · Define each theory to include a brief overview of the history. · Explain how each theory works by using a public health issue as an example. · Discuss the benefits and challenges of using each theory. · Compare and contrast the theories. · Comment on the postings of at least two peers Evaluation Criteria · Identified two theories and described each theory. · Provided examples of how each theory works, using a public health issue. · Explained the benefits and challenges of using each theory. · Compared and contrasted the two theories. · Justified answers with appropriate research and reasoning by using appropriate examples and current references from textbooks, the South University Online Library, and other acceptable references—citing the sources in APA format. · Commented on the postings of at least two peers by providing background to support asking questions, providing a point of view with rationale, challenging a point of discussion, or making a relationship between two or more points.

Paper For Above instruction

The intricate relationship between the environment and human health is foundational to public health. Environmental factors—such as pollution, housing conditions, and access to clean water—play a significant role in influencing health outcomes. When examining how societal, cultural, and environmental frameworks shape these interactions, social and environmental theories provide valuable insights. This paper compares two such theories: the Social Ecological Model (SEM) and the Health Belief Model (HBM). By analyzing their origins, mechanisms, benefits, challenges, and applications to public health issues, this discussion illustrates how these theories can inform effective interventions.

Overview of the Theories

Social Ecological Model (SEM)

The Social Ecological Model, developed primarily by Bronfenbrenner in the 1970s, emphasizes the multiple levels of influence on individual behavior—from personal factors to broader societal determinants. Originating from ecological systems theory, SEM considers interactions at five levels: individual, interpersonal, organizational, community, and policy. Its foundation underscores that health behaviors are affected not only by personal choices but also by relationships, institutional influences, community norms, and policies. This multilevel approach recognizes the complex causes of health issues, advocating for interventions across various societal sectors.

Health Belief Model (HBM)

The Health Belief Model, developed in the 1950s by social psychologists Hochbaum, Rosenstock, and Kegels, focuses on individual perceptions and beliefs about health threats and behaviors. It suggests that health actions are primarily influenced by personal assessments of susceptibility, severity, benefits, barriers, cues to action, and self-efficacy. Its roots in cognitive psychology underpin its emphasis on individual decision-making processes, making it a useful framework for understanding why people adopt or ignore health recommendations.

How Each Theory Works with a Public Health Issue

SEM and Air Pollution

Applying SEM to air pollution demonstrates its comprehensive approach. At the individual level, personal behaviors such as using masks or reducing outdoor activity are emphasized. Interpersonal influences might include family recommendations to avoid pollution on certain days. Organizationally, workplaces could implement policies for cleaner air or air quality monitoring. Community-level interventions might involve advocacy for improved public transportation and emission controls. At the policy level, regulations to limit industrial emissions are crucial. This layered approach ensures interventions address the multifaceted nature of air pollution’s health impacts, such as respiratory diseases.

HBM and Vaccination Uptake

The HBM offers insights into vaccination behaviors by focusing on individual perceptions. If a person perceives high susceptibility to a disease and believes its severity is significant, they are more likely to get vaccinated. Perceived benefits of vaccination and barriers such as fear of side effects influence decision-making. Cues to action, like healthcare provider recommendations, can trigger vaccination uptake, while self-efficacy relates to confidence in accessing vaccines. Addressing these perceptions through targeted education can enhance vaccination rates and prevent disease outbreaks.

Benefits and Challenges of Each Theory

Benefits of SEM

• Holistic framework addressing multiple levels of influence
• Facilitates comprehensive, multi-sectoral interventions
• Encourages policy and community engagement

Challenges of SEM

• Complex to implement due to its broad scope
• Requires coordination across sectors and stakeholders
• Measurement of effectiveness can be difficult given the layered influence

Benefits of HBM

• Focuses on personal perceptions, allowing tailored health education
• Simple to apply in designing health promotion campaigns
• Backed by extensive psychological research

Challenges of HBM

• Ignores broader social and environmental factors influencing behavior
• Assumes rational decision-making, which may not reflect real-world complexities
• Potentially limited in addressing structural barriers to behavior change

Comparison and Contrast

While both theories aim to explain health behaviors, they differ significantly in scope and application. The SEM's multi-level framework captures external influences—environment, policy, community—which are crucial when environmental factors impact health outcomes. Conversely, the HBM centers on individual perceptions, making it more suited for behaviors under personal control, such as vaccination decisions. Both models can complement each other; for example, using SEM to identify structural barriers and HBM to tailor individual messaging enhances intervention effectiveness.

Addressing Public Health Issues with Each Theory

Environmental health challenges, such as urban air pollution, require the layered intervention approach of SEM to address policy, community, and individual behaviors simultaneously. Conversely, vaccine hesitancy benefits from the HBM’s focus on perceptions, beliefs, and cues, informing personalized communication strategies to increase compliance.

Conclusion

Understanding how environmental and social theories influence health behaviors provides a foundation for designing effective public health interventions. The SEM offers a comprehensive, multilevel view suitable for addressing environmental determinants, whereas the HBM provides targeted insights into individual motivation. Combining these approaches can lead to more holistic and effective solutions for complex health issues influenced by environmental factors.

References

• Cao, L., & Wang, Y. (2020). Applying the Social Ecological Model to Public Health Interventions. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 26(2), 124-130.
• Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The Health Belief Model: A decade later. Health Education Quarterly, 11(1), 1–47.
• McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An Ecological Perspective on Health Promotion Programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15(4), 351–377.
• Pender, N. J., Murdaugh, C., & Parsons, M. A. (2015). Health Promotion in Nursing Practice (7th ed.). Elsevier.
• Green, L. W., & Kreuter, M. W. (2005). Health Program Planning: An Educational and Ecological Approach. McGraw-Hill.
• Rosenstock, I. M. (1974). Historical origins of the Health Belief Model. Health Education Monographs, 2(4), 328–335.
• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development. Harvard University Press.
• Sallis, J. F., Owen, N., & Fisher, E. B. (2015). Ecological models of health behavior. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health Behavior: Theory, Research, and Practice (5th ed., pp. 43–64). Jossey-Bass.
• World Health Organization. (2015). Environmental health in urban settings. WHO Publications.
• Glanz, K., Rimer, B. K., & Viswanath, K. (2015). Social and Behavioral Theories. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health Behavior: Theory, Research, and Practice (5th ed., pp. 27–46). Jossey-Bass.