Health promotion is an essential element of the modern healthcare sector as it helps to improve outcomes and decrease the number of diseases that emerge every year. In this regard, health promotion becomes an extremely significant area that is used by specialists with the primary aim to attain better results by explaining specific activities and strategies that can precondition better results and guarantee the faster recovery (Lindstrom, 2018). At the same time, the importance of health promotion is evidenced by numerous research works that are focused on the investigation of the ways to improve the functioning of the healthcare sector and create a new healthy environment (Lindstrom, 2018). In this regard, the given paper is devoted to the determination of a specific type of health promotion that could be used in a particular health unit, and methods of teaching that fit organizational needs, peculiarities of the staff, and patients. Thus, the population includes employees working in a particular health unit and delivering care to patients suffering from diabetes. Additionally, middle-class patients of diverse ethnicity who also have the same disease comprise the target population. The targeted health behavior includes positive alterations that drive positive change in patients states, outcomes, and blood sugar.
tailored to your instructions
for only $13.00 $11.05/page
Choice of the Method
Regarding the peculiarities of the hospital and target population, specific lifestyle and behavior change programs should be determined as the best type of health promotion. First, it fits the basic needs of patients suffering from diabetes. Second, lifestyle behavior alterations are an integral element of the health promotion in general which means that the adherence to this method will help to significantly improve the health of the target population by minimizing the risk of having other diseases or their complications (Lindstrom, 2018). Finally, lifestyle and behavior change demonstrate the high efficiency in diverse cases and also remain less costly than other methods. For this reason, the choice of the health promotion method is justified by its numerous positive aspects and contribution to the overall state improvement.
Nevertheless, the efficiency of lifestyle and behavior change is proven by numerous research. For instance, cogitating about the basic causal factors that result in the emergence and development of diabetes, Kent, Johnson, Simeon, and Frates (2016) state that the lack of activity and inappropriate food habits are the two most frequently mentioned aspects associated with the disease. For this reason, the basic area that demands intervention and change is the patients mode of life and their inability to understand the pernicious impact of poor dietary habits and lack of physical exercises on their bodies. Additionally, Lindstrom (2018) assumes that health promotion related to diabetes should be focused on individuals involvement in activities that might improve their health and guarantee a significant reduction in the risk of the development of complications or other negative states. That is why physical activity supported by an appropriate change in behavioral patterns will help to cultivate the healthy environment and attain better results.
In such a way, the efficient educational plan related to the outlined target population should include the following aspects. First, the staff of the medical facility should be educated about the essential role physical activity and behavior play in treating diabetes. For this reason, this courses will help to understand the necessity of patients involvement in this activity. Second, all patients should be provided with materials that evidence the positive impact of the selected health promotion method and emphasize its necessity. Statistics show that outcomes of patients education depend on the efficiency of health workers and their ability to share critical knowledge (Povlsen & Borup, 2015). For this reason, experienced nurses should communicate with patients to explain the basics of this health promotion approach.
Additionally, the suggested educational plan includes the shift of priorities towards the self-care practices. In other words, patients should be ready to improve their states using their own forces. In this regard, Orems self-care deficit theory should be applied to the case to identify the most problematic areas that demand intervention to improve health outcomes (Povlsen & Borup, 2015). Using this theory along with the new data about the positive impact of physical exercises and appropriate dietary habits and behaviors, patients will be able to fulfill the deficit for care and contribute to the significant improvement of their states. Finally, evaluation of results should also be included in the offered educational plan as it helps to determine the efficiency of the strategy and improve it in future. The time-frame is around 4-6 months to admit the first changes due to the adherence to the appropriate health practices. The costs will be comparatively low because of the absence of the need for specific equipment or medications. The only possible barrier that might appear is the patients unwillingness to engage in the process.
Altogether, the use of lifestyle and behavior change programs as the method to improve patients states and educate specific populations is justified by its proven positive impact. Additionally, the combination of the low price and efficiency preconditions its use in middle-class groups to achieve better results. In such a way, this method could be recommended as a potent way to promote health.
Kent, K., Johnson, J., Simeon, K., & Frates, E. (2016). Case series in lifestyle medicine: A team approach to behavior changes. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 10(6), 388-397. Web.
as little as 3 hours
Lindstrom, B. (2018). Workshop salutogenesis and the future of health promotion and public health. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 46(20), 94-98. Web.
Povlsen, L., & Borup, I. (2015). Health promotion: A developing focus area over the years. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 43(16), 46-50. Web.