Last week, we learned a number of theories that are utilized
when addressing global health problems. One of them consisted of concepts that
really stuck out to me and that I thought were the most powerful and impactful.
The theory I am referring to is the biosocial theory and the ideas of
institutionalization, legitimation, and social biases. Although, public health
aims to improve health at the population level, the biosocial theory stresses
the importance of understanding the characteristics of the society, economy,
history, and culture of your target population. When looking at health problems
and disparities, a lot more is going on than just irregular biological
functions-there is also a large social aspect. Who people surround themselves
with, what type of community they live in, the quality and average level of
education attained in the area, the resources that are available to them such
as healthy food, a safe space to exercise, and healthcare, the social norms,
the religious beliefs, the cultural practices…all play a role in an individual’s health. In addition, social
biases also have an impact and two examples from the book really caught my
attention. First, that until 1987 did homosexuality completely fall out of the
DSM. Second, that if you grieve for more
than two weeks, you are considered depressed. These rationales, and probably
many more, have a direct impact on society and how they view their sexuality or
their mental state. I also thought about the movie we watched a couple weeks
ago and how in Botswana, marketing for HIV/AIDS testing was everywhere and
prominent, but in America it is highly unspoken of because of its negative and embarrassing
stigma. Improving health is linked to the way we’ve socially constructed diseases
and the response to these diseases. We need to not only learn to take into
account these social factors when addressing health, but also teach society to
seek help when they believe they are sick, even if it is a disease that society
views negatively, such as STI’s or mental illness.
Hannah, yes that theory was really intriguing to me as well. Our social context drives a lot of what we do and our biases. Even in overcoming our social biases I think that some of it remains because we can't really get rid of those context in which we see and conceptualize things. When my grandfather we mourned and the women wailed and we grieved for 90 days which is standard in my country and 1 year later on his anniversary we got together to celebrate his life. Now we do this every five years. This may be considered excessive, but we deal with death differently. However we don't deal with mental health issues, it's considered a non-issue so that's the drawback. This biosocial theory speaks to the heart of behavior as context dependent.
ReplyDeleteAnd lot of times we have understand the dialectic that the argument of choice/ agency poses. Is individual choice or agency always free or individuals are driven to the choice/ agency...?
ReplyDeleteI agree that the social stigma of disease can be a great impact on the treatment and recovery for that person. I have done some research into how social networks affect health and am hoping to do more. It is my belief that if we do not address the environment is along with their health issue; no lasting effects will be seen. I think of it as trying to tell a person to eat healthy, but have them in a food desert. It is extremely hard, if not impossible for someone to eat healthy in that environment. Looking at the environment and community standards is a great part of public health.
ReplyDelete