Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Haignere, C. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Haignere, C. S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Health Education Research, Vol. 14, No. 4, 507-518, August 1999
© 1999 Oxford University Press

Closing the ecological gap: the public/private dilemma

Clara S. Haignere

Department of Health Studies, Temple University, Vivacqua Hall 301E, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA

Numerous health behavior theories and models address human and environmental factors that affect health status. Although ecological models have called for multilevel intervention strategies, all too often health professionals remain unsure which levels of intervention to target: individual, institutional/organizational, community, public-policy or some combination of these. The decision is often influenced by general societal perceptions of how much control individuals have over health risks. These perceptions, in turn, influence health professionals' own perceptions. The question raised here is how do these perceptions of how public or private a health issue is affect the intervention levels we target? Frequently intervention levels are discussed as if they exist on a continuum, with private individual interventions at one end, and societal policies and laws at the other. This article offers a `public/private health matrix' based on two axes, one representing individual rejectability of health risks, the other showing how publicly or privately supplied or regulated these risks are. The 10 leading causes of death and two childhood illnesses in the US are used to demonstrate how the matrix might help analyze the public/private nature of different health risks and risk-reducing strategies, and to demonstrate how such distinctions may influence the levels of intervention health professionals target.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Epidemiol. Community HealthHome page
D L Armstrong, D Strogatz, and R Wang
Trends in coronary mortality and community services, associated with occupational structure in New York State, 1980-96
J. Epidemiol. Community Health, November 1, 2002; 56(11): 868 - 875.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.