HP-101
Web Conference: Session Summary
Session 1: 3 March'05 (2:30p.m. to 4:00p.m.)
The session
started with brief introductions from all the participants and the
2 facilitators. The web conference involved discussion on 3 reflective
exercises from the course and related online polls.
The first reflective
exercise (Comparing
Definitions of Health Promotion) dealt with the 2 different
definitions of Health Promotion (as in Ottawa Charter and American
Journal of Health Promotion - AJHP) and their focus. The scenario
discussed by the group involved two health promoters working on
the same issue ("preventing diabetes among low-income, socially
isolated seniors"), but using the different definitions presented
in the module and the resulting difference in their approaches.
Initial comments revolved around listing the attributes of each
of the definitions or approaches. The Ottawa Charter was considered
as more enabling, empowering, participatory and client oriented,
while the AJHP definition was considered to be more paternalistic
("to be implemented as it is"). The group's initial bias
towards the Ottawa Charter shifted to a realization that both definitions
and related approaches have a role to play, however not equally.
It was also emphasized that a healthy public policy would be a result
of a crossover between the two approaches. A poll at the end of
the discussion showed:
Some shorter
side discussions were also initiated among participants around -
Health promotion and Population Health terminology, Community development
and Health promotion (which one is a superset and which one a subset?),
and whether or not individual countries and cultures have their
own definitions of health promotion.
The second reflective
exercise (Linking
Models to Practice) discussed three different models - biomedical,
behavioural and socio-environmental - and the barriers in transition
from one model to another. Participants felt that the behavioural
notion is predominant but it also depends on the approach of the
organization and the bias of the individual worker. Some activities
might involve a blending of all three models and models need not
be mutually exclusive. This again highlighted the acceptance of
the Ottawa Charter as it embodies an interdisciplinary approach.
Some of the barriers to the transition were identified as: funding,
lack of awareness among decision makers, getting people on the same
page, accountability to the funder being quantitative and not qualitative,
lack of an inter-sectoral or inter-ministerial approach. So the
discussion resulted in the realization that inter-sectoral collaboration
is key. This was further highlighted by an example on the issue
of smog in Toronto and the lack of coordination between TTC and
the City. A poll at the end of the discussion showed:
The last reflective
exercise (Linking
Theory to Practice) discussed experiences of creating a change
around a health related issue, the strategies adopted and the reason
for success. Participants asserted the fact that decision makers
need to be made aware of need for change. There were concerns around
implementing a change to a whole group; - synchronization would
be a challenge.
The session
ended with a final poll on the usefulness of the session and feedback
from the participants on the course and the session.
Feedback
from the participants
 Course
is very clear, interesting and easy to understand.
Reflective
exercises are excellent and a good way of applying what has been
learnt.
Course is very well
outlined and easy to read.
Web conference or
the facilitated session was particularly helpful and the dialogue
around the Ottawa charter is appreciated.
Discussion around
"Theories" and the Ottawa Charter was enjoyable.
Format is very much
appreciated.
|
