Multidisciplinary Approach to Health Promotion Assignment

March 6, 2022

Multidisciplinary Approach to Health Promotion Assignment

Multidisciplinary Approach to Health Promotion: Think about the approach to strategic planning and the resource allocation related to promoting a holistic health care promotion plan for diabetic Latino population. Who are the stakeholders that will be involved in the implementation of the plan? Further, how will you get them on board with the plan? Additionally, how will you incorporate culturally sensitive strategies in this endeavor? Lastly, identify resources that will help empower your chosen population in attaining and maintaining health.

Address the following in this Multidisciplinary Approach to Health Promotion assignment:

1. Describe the potential disciplines that will participate in health care promotion as well as disease prevention and management for Latinos with diabetes.

2. Describe the potential interrelationships and communication among different health care delivery settings for Latinos with diabetes. Include the involvement of patients, families, groups, nurses, interdepartmental health care teams, community-based stakeholders, and governments (local, state, and federal).

3. Lastly, explain how the incorporated health care promotion strategies are culturally competent.

Identify and advocate for resources that may empower populations in attaining and maintaining health.

Written Requirements for Multidisciplinary Approach to Health Promotion

Written communication: Written communication is free of errors that detract from the overall message.

APA formatting: Resources and citations are formatted according to APA style and formatting.

Number of resources: 8–10 citations.

Length of paper: 5–8 pages.

Font and font size: Times New Roman, 12 point.


HP is a relatively new field that draws on a variety of disciplines, including public health, sociology, political science, psychology, and education. This interdisciplinarity has harmed HP’s institutionalization efforts. Until now, scholars have primarily examined HP’s multidisciplinarity through anecdotal accounts, limiting our understanding of the breadth and interaction of the disciplines that comprise HP research. The overarching goal of this article is to contribute to a better understanding of HP’s multidisciplinarity through the use of bibliometric analysis. We used a three-pronged approach: I we examined the most frequently cited journals within Health Promotion International; (ii) we polled an international panel of HP scholars (n = 27) to determine the journals that were most relevant to their work; and (iii) we examined the most frequently used words in article abstracts among the journals that received the most votes. We examined similarities between HPI references, scholars’ votes, and abstracts’ words using multiple correspondence analyses. We discovered evidence that HP research spanned multiple disciplines but was fragmented into distinct subgroups with divergent perspectives. We discovered that HPI was the only journal that was deemed relevant by a majority of respondents (81 percent of participants). Multidisciplinarity is a defining characteristic of HP. It has the potential to strengthen HP by broadening our understanding of health and social issues, but it also has the potential to divide experts into disciplinary silos. This may eventually erode its institutional foundations and diminish its contribution to public health. Additional academic venues and institutions should be established to foster collaboration between HP scholars and practitioners.

Since the late 1970s, health promotion (HP) has brought together scholars and practitioners from a variety of disciplines, including health education, psychology, communication, epidemiology, and sociology (Bunton and Macdonald, 2002; Orme et al., 2007). While this multidisciplinarity has remained a constant throughout HP’s brief existence, it may have acted as a double-edged sword. That is, HP’s international recognition for its unique approach to health and innovative interventions can be attributed in large part to the pool of expertise drawn from the diverse disciplines that comprise HP. On the other hand, HP has encountered significant difficulties and setbacks that have been attributed to divergent interests and a lack of collaboration among diverse HP scholars and practitioners.
Is it a friend or a foe?

As public health research increasingly focuses on the mechanisms underlying the development of healthy lives and communities, the breadth of multidisciplinary expertise available to HP scholars enables them to better comprehend its complexity (McQueen, 1996; McQueen and Jones, 2007; Potvin and McQueen, 2007). Indeed, HP conceptualizations of health problems and action strategies are heavily influenced by concepts and theories from a variety of disciplines, most notably social psychology and, increasingly, social theories (Orme et al., 2007; Potvin and McQueen, 2007; Carroll, 2012). This broader view of health enables HP scholars and practitioners to analyze and intervene at a variety of levels, including the individual, their social networks, the various settings in which they live (e.g., workplace, school, home, neighborhood), and the larger structure of policies and social norms that influence their health indirectly. It also allows for some innovation, as a plethora of theories and methods attempt to comprehend and address these complex health phenomena (Potvin & McQueen, 2007). Thus, collaboration between researchers from diverse backgrounds has been argued to be a distinguishing feature of HP, allowing its scholars and practitioners to gain more nuanced and advanced understandings of complex health and social issues (McQueen & Jones, 2007; Potvin & McQueen, 2007).

While collaboration can be beneficial when it occurs, we argue that collaboration is not a natural outcome of a multidisciplinary field. Indeed, many HP researchers’ work is constrained by their particular disciplinary interests or by ‘disciplinary silos.’ This lack of collaboration appears to have resulted in conceptual tensions within HP research. For instance, those with backgrounds in health education and social psychology frequently focus their research on changing individual behavior through direct observation of human behavior or intervention aimed at changing unhealthy human behavior (Murphy and Bennett, 2002; Brewer and Rimer, 2008). This approach has been roundly criticized by health policy scholars for its narrow focus on the individual and omission of the context and broader environment that encompass and influence individual health (Carroll, 2012; Abel & McQueen, 2013). The health policy scholars who make this critique generally concentrate their efforts on comprehending and intervening in the broader social determinants of health (i.e. income, education, neighbourhood, work environment etc.).

Posted in nursing by Clarissa