Health Promotion Programs

 

 

A​‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‌‌‌‍​ssume that you are working in a community health department. The department has some federal money that it wants to allocate to two health promotion programs from the following: Decrease in deaths from cardiovascular disease Decrease in deaths from breast cancer Decrease in teenage pregnancy Decrease in cigarette smoking Decrease in incidence of diabetes Decrease in motor vehicle accidents Decrease in osteoporosis and hip fractures among women Decrease in obesity Identify the health promotion programs that you would want to investigate and get them approved by your instructor. Address the following questions: 1. Identify the risk factors associated with the selected health promotion programs. 2. What is the target population ​‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‌‌‌‍​associated with the selected health promotion program? Consider the hypothetical target population, consisting of middle-aged women, male adolescent gang members, premature infants, etc., and describe the characteristics of each program. 3. What are the risk factors that you want to focus on in order to achieve the objective of the health promotion program? 4. What intervention would you recommend to be most appropriate to reduce exposure to these risk factors? You can choose at what level of intervention you want to implement each program (primary, secondary, tertiary health intervention). 5. What will be the process by which this intervention will achieve the goal of the program? 6. What will be the anticipated outcome of this intervention​‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‌‌‌‍​?

Sample Solution

understanding of Lyndsey’s experiences, to make a positive change. This, as a result, encouraged and empowered Lyndsey to agree to CAMHS appointments, Sexual Health Clinic appointments, drug, and alcohol support, and to re-engage in education (Connolly, 2006).
Regular supervision and meetings with other professionals played a significant role in achieving the agreed recommendations. The recommendations weighed up the risks of harm to establish the best development of actions (Ewiik, 2017). This decision was enhanced by the implementation of a task-centred approach, which asked them to work together on specific, measurable, and achievable goals. In this way, it was possible to recognise unrealistic and realistic goals for Lyndsey to enhance her welfare and placement (Howe and Gray, 2012).
Complexities identified during supervision were discussed, and foster carers and parents were involved in the decision-making process. Through these actions, and the sharing of any overall concerns, a partnership, and transparency in addressing complexities was promoted (Hood, 2018). However, non-cooperation from Lyndsey, her foster carer, and her parents could have unknown factors in the succession of any decisions made. Therefore, the method of care could have been stricter. To consider the place of personal and professional values, it seemed to be necessary that practitioners were mindful that working deferentially with individuals in practice is a significant factor in addressing any complexities (DoH, 2000).
Taking into account the legal framework within risk assessment procedures is vital, and instructs and informs the assessment process (Davies and Ward, 2012). The Working Together to Safeguard Children agenda was set out to promote collaborative work between individuals and organisations to promote and protect children’s’ welfare in line with the Children Act 1989 and 2004 (Cleaver, 2012). This policy set out legal directions on the main responsibilities and legislation of agencies and professionals to safeguard children (HM Government, 2010). Inadequate assessment, and lack of action against safeguarding concerns, led to serious case reviews, and raised investigations into let-downs in child protection. This caused national anxiety, public discussion, and much media comment, and led to social work being under great pressure (Laming, 2009). The implementation of these legislations and the progress of assessment within children services, has increased discussion amongst leaders of social work practice with regard to risks and risk management (Teater, 2014).
Assessment has always been a central tool in social work practice for safeguarding children’s and families’ services (Hood, 2018). Assessment is a continuous process in social work practice, especially when addressing the discourse of complexity in cases of children and family. Under the Children Act 1989, the LA and other agencies are to safeguard, provide, and promote children’s welfare (Doucet, et al, 2001). Therefore, the support provided by the LA and other agencies to Lyndsey was a duty stipulated within the statutory law to avert the further risk of significant harm (HM,Government, 2012).
Another legislation used to enhance practice experience was the Every Child Matters agenda (Barker, 2009). This meant that Lyndsey’s support had to cover the five outcomes of this agenda, including being healthy, enjoying and achieving, staying safe, maintaining economic wellbeing, and making a positive contribution (Gov.uk, 2018). Building good relationships with other practitioners to explore and recognise risks together, enabled practitioners to gather an in-depth understanding of the case and any additional information for the assessment process (Barker, 2009). This ensured appropriate decisions were implemented. This influenced the Children Act 2004 which voiced significance to the com