Social ecological models describe and emphasis how individual behaviors’ and the relationship with environment influences and creates a huge impact at the health outcomes and general health practice (Lyons et al., 2019). Social ecological models stress various degrees of effect and the likelihood that rehearses both shape and are formed by the social condition. The guidelines of these models are unsurprising with social scholarly speculation thoughts which suggest that making a space supportive for change is basic to making it easier to get strong practices. The recommendations and suggestions of the models have been applied in medical intervention and promotion of health practices in the country of Australia.
The following socio-ecological models are crucial in planning for the health practices and maintaining sustainability in the service delivery (Golden and Earp, 2012).
Promotora model: it is the most effective approach in designing health practices and preventing diseases. The model focuses mainly on community health workers in reaching people in the local areas. It has been widely used in reaching Australia's remote areas. The promotora model is also known as the community health worker model. The promotoras acts as the bond between governmental and non-governmental systems and the areas they serve. The promotoras offer data about diet, how to reach a doctor among other services (Wold and Mittelmark, 2018). They get coaching by the Executive Director and several local, country and national firms like the National Heart. This model is used because promotoras are efficient disseminators of knowledge. They act as transformation agents in their naturally happening social networks.
It is by use of promotoras that secures many cultural and social aspects of low-income characters can be brought upon to develop the suitable usage of health care services. These social and cultural aspects can lead to as strong family care through the various interdependent ties of the extended household and the system of co-mothers and co-fathers, which are composed of the family unit (Goran, 2016). The effort to improve health habits is helped or controlled by the strength of the family ties. This is because the data shared by the family is considered over that of a healthcare expert. Therefore, if misinformation is kept by many respects within the family system, it is possible to be passed onto others strengthening the misinformation and ending in adverse results on the current and future health status of the people.
This model is based on past research and guide intervention that verify the efficacy of this model. The promotora services are distributed through home visits and society presentations and also include health promotion strategies that impact skills, beliefs and practices on a community level. The promotoras go to where people meet like churches, health fairs, gas station, among other places to reach the unreachable.
This type of model is useful because it uses pre existing systems to include a population that has traditionally had a poor way to health care systems. The model has shown the ability to develop access to care among helpless and challenging to reach people in a variety of settings. Promotoras are frequently the bridge among the dissimilar populations; they serve as healthcare system (Hodapp, 2014). Promotora model is frequently utilized in the US and Latin America in order to reach Hispanic societies.
Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP): The model was created to come up with mechanisms of preventing and managing cancer through the use of ecological model components (Sun and Hilker, 2020). After assessing the nature and operations of the Colorectal Cancer Program, it is profound that there are overlooked necessities in providing health care services among the aged. CCP has been criticized for failing to use an evidence-based approach in screening the aged population consistently. In the US, the struggle to provide affordable care has been persistent for decades. Cancer is among the killer diseases in the United States and across the world, and Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CCCP) was implemented to help uninsured patients to undergo CDC. However, one of the surveys done in 2011 indicated that evidence-based intervention is vital to improving CRC results. However, only a few guarantees in the first 2 years of CRCCP used evidence-based intervention. In this sense, the program might be risking the aged to misdiagnosis (Joseph, 2019).
The CRCCP is a five-year cooperative partnership sponsored by the CDC to improve the health outcomes for colorectal cancer (CRC) in low-income, high-needed communities by joining with health systems stakeholders to introduce EBI and support activities (SAs) in hospitals and clinics to raise screening rates for CRC (Med, 2013). Almost all CRCCP grants utilized one or more EBIs. Generally, more funding recipients used limited media and client notifications. They found these EBIs easier to adopt than measures to eliminate institutional obstacles, patient notifications, or provider evaluation and input that were presented to have a better effect on increasing showing levels than either small medium or patient notifications. Take into consideration the basis of facts for patient alerts and those structural obstacles, provider-oriented EBIs may have a significant impact on test rates.
The CRCCP contains two parts of the program: (1) CRC testing of low-income, unemployed and high deductibles people (testing requirement), and (2) growing health outcomes at the societal level (screening sponsorship). Many that receive CRCCP grants offer screening of CRC to a large community of United States. People, even those with the lowest clinical outcomes, and endorse it. The primary objective of using EBIs is to enhance screening of CRC; future work will investigate the level of implementation of these EBIs and to what degree CRC screening levels have improved, particularly in low testing groups (Stokols, 2018). Studying factors retaining maximum or leaving the EBIs should establish a database of knowledge gained which can be exchanged between grant holders to support them improve their efficacy in identifying and applying EBIs.
Many that receive CRCCP grants implement EBIs to help CRC testing and several grant applicants are seeking to years full EBIs over the next 12 months. Overall, grant holders are enacting more client-oriented methods than supplier-oriented ones; duty to improve grant holders incorporate supplier-oriented strategies and decrease and reduce access inequalities to CRC testing may enhance testing rates considerably (Kahi and Anderson, 2011). Going to study how EBIs applied by CRCCP grants will provide information to enhance both the CRCCP and other initiatives that promote the usage of EBIs.
The two models provide mechanism of addressing the health conditions. However, the models are more specific on the health condition they address. They will be more effective and efficient if they would have been tailored to address all health conditions and problems but not have limited to accessibility. The socio-ecological model stresses and talks about wellbeing advancement should concentrate on relational conduct factors as well as on the numerous level factors that impact and affect the particular conduct being referred to (Wehmeyer et al., 2018). This procedure structure contemplates the incredible exchange between particular, relationship, arrange, and social segments. It recollects that us to fathom and handle the extent of parts that put people in peril for brutality or shield them from experiencing or executing violence. Furthermore this can help recognize promising purposes of mediation and give a superior comprehension of how social issues are created and continued inside and over the different subsystems like for instance a person's choices and perspectives result from cooperation’s with his/her social and physical environmental factors.
There five levels of the socio-ecological model as follows (Marín, 2019);
Example: Skills, Attitudes, Attitudes, Knowledge, Attitudes, Sexual Orientation
Example: Family Environment, Emotional Support, Social Networks
Example; Incentives Policies, Confidentiality or Privacy
Example: transportation, Social/Cultural Norms, Recreation Facilities
Example: Funding and Resources, Racial and Ethnic Equity, Political Priorities
These follow an order from descending to ascending as shown in the diagram below where the foundation of the model is laid on the individuals and the amount of knowledge and skills that they possess. After that their skills matter in terms of the interpersonal abilities of the network that they have. Followed by this comes the level organizational rules and ethics which have to be taken into due account and consideration. After this in order comes the communities where they have to take into account the laws and regulations that are followed in that. Subsequently, following this will lastly comes the policy that is formed taking into due consideration all the points which can affect it.
Social ecological model emphasize multiple levels of influence and their ideas that behaviors both shape and are shaped by social environment (Grant and Wang, 2019). A typical social ecological model is shown below in the figure.
Golden, S. & Earp. J. A. (2012). Social Ecological Approaches to Individuals and Their Contexts: Twenty Years of Health Education & Behavior Health Promotion Interventions. Health and Education Behaviour, 39(3), 364-372.
Goran, M. (2016). Childhood Obesity: Causes, Consequences, and Intervention Approaches. . United States: CRC Press.
Grant, W. E., Wang, H. (2019). Ecological Modeling: An Introduction to the Art and Science of Modeling Ecological Systems. Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
Hodapp, R. (2014). International Review of Research in Developmental Disabilities. (2014). Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
Joseph, D. A. (2019). The CDC Colorectal Cancer Control Program, 2009–2015. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, 16, 32-36.
Kahi, MD, C. & Anderson, MD, J. (2011). Colorectal Cancer Screening. United States: Humana Press.
Lyons, S. T., Schweitzer, L., Urick, M. J., & Kuron, L. (2019). A dynamic social-ecological model of generational identity in the workplace. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 17(1), 1-24.
Marín, V. H. (2019). Social-ecological Systems of Latin America: Complexities and Challenges. Germany: Springer International Publishing.
Med, Prev. (2013). Colorectal Cancer Control Program Grantees’ Use of Evidence-Based Interventions. PMC, 45(5), 644-648.
social-ecological model and challenges in implementation of interventions. Scandinavian Journal of Public health, 46(20), 20-26.
Stokols, D. (2018). Social Ecology in the Digital Age: Solving Complex Problems in a Globalized World. United Kingdom: Elsevier Science.
Sun, T. A., & Hilker, F. M. (2020). Analyzing the mutual feedbacks between lake pollution and human behaviour in a mathematical social-ecological model. Ecological Complexity, 43, 100834.
Tangka, F. K. L., Subramanian, S., Hoover, S., Royalty, J., Joseph, K., DeGroff, A., Joseph,D. and Chattopadhayay, S. (2017). Costs of promoting cancer screening: Evidence from CDC’s Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP). Evaluation and Program Planning, 62, 67-72.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Black, P., Shogren, K. A., Martinis, J. (2018). Supported Decision-Making: Theory, Research, and Practice to Enhance Self-Determination and Quality of Life. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Wold, B. & Mittelmark , M. (2018). Health-promotion research over three decades
Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Environmental Sustainability Assignment Help
Proofreading and Editing$9.00Per Page
Consultation with Expert$35.00Per Hour
Live Session 1-on-1$40.00Per 30 min.
Doing your Assignment with our resources is simple, take Expert assistance to ensure HD Grades. Here you Go....