the question has been asked--and answered at lest since Chadwick's Town and Country volumes in the ninteenth century study of the health of the labouring class. The answer is yes, it is more than simple health promotion. As Chadwick's subjects reported--and we've known time and again, disease is costly, robbing society of the work hours and contributions of fellow citizens. And the effects of disease spread from the person who is ill through the family (that must care for him or her, or pay for that care) and community (whose members help in that care). Finally, in infectious disease, the illness of some becomes a threat to the many. In Chadwick's day the argument that ignoring the needs of the poor created pools of opportunity for disease that would spread to the rich was potent. And we see the same, time and again, today.
Health promotion and disease prevention are two things that are interrelated. if we do health promotion, we indirectly also do prevention of disease. So both are equally important and profitable.
Tri Widodo Health promotion programs aim to engage and empower individuals and communities to choose healthy behaviors, and make changes that reduce the risk of developing chronic diseases and other morbidities.
But When it comes to our health, prevention is much better than cure. Several diseases and injuries are preventable, and can be managed much better if identified earlier on. A @regular check-up with your doctor helps them to assess your overall health and to identify your risk factors for disease.
I think health promotion must do earlier than disease prevention. It has different area and larger than disease prevention. Health promotion aims to improve community health but the disease prevention aims to prevent from disease and it give to population at risk for some spesific protection