At first sight, I see no difference between the operational definition of Salutogenic-oriented health promoting program and other programs that seek to boost elderly health. I mean at the theoretical level there have been distinguishing differences but when it comes to the practical application of this theory, I comprehend no distinguishing difference.
Saeede - your question seems to answer itself. The theoretical framework for programmes, as long as they are well justified and rationalised, is 'self-contained'. It doesn't have to salutogenic (which is a very broad principle anyway); it 'can be it's own thing'.
Dean is correct, it is at the academic level that we make an effort to differentiate theoretically but in practice the work merges- this is the challenge of the -art and science of health promotion' - see my recent paper on this subject. Antonovsky describes it as an approach focusing on factors that support human health and wellbeing, rather than on factors that cause disease. More specifically, he was concerned with health, stress, and coping individual level. In practice. there is a big difference between resilience and empowerment and this is a key area that separates HP and salutogenesis.
Many thanks for the enlightening answers. But what is confusing me is the fact that if two theories are not distinguishable at the operational level, for what reasons they're being proposed? In practice what health promoting programs are Salutogenic-oriented? Could you please shed more light on the issue via providing me with some examples?
Saeede, it’s a nice empirical question that you ask here and it boils down to the intentions of the funder, which would be a nice question to ask of them! If I was to hazard a guess it would be to position the program as deliberately distancing itself from those (usually medically oriented) “old style” interventions that are clearly pathogenic: about fixing people after they have got sick and so wants to be seen as novel and innovative. The “assets-based approach” to public health (which has salutogenesis as it’s underpinning theory) is pretty much a political strategy. I dont use the term ”political” disparagingly, because, frankly, if we are serious about addressing upstream social determinants then there has to be serious change at the level of the socio-economic-politico framework in my opinion. Your question in my opinion very much goes to the heart of the political economy of health and healthcare.
By the way, you might find this paper of mine, published in Critical Public Health last year, of interest. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/articles/28670100/
Thanks for your delicate and truly illuminating response. I really enjoyed the way you put it.
Thanks for your kind words, but I don’t know how illuminating my answer is really! I think the question you raise is an important one concerning the nature of evidence based policy in this context. Best of luck!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Public Health
- Health