Population-Focused Health Essay

As the years have passed, the concept of population-focused health has gained more attention. It is based on the social and environmental factors that affect health. For example, many diseases are caused by unhealthy lifestyles. By analyzing the social environment, it is possible to develop better health policies. But how do we get there? What is the best way to go about this? How can we make population health more accessible?

Social science

A recent change in funding policies has left many social scientists in the field questioning their value and role in public health. However, despite the difficulties, social scientists can leverage their role as communication and dissemination experts to advance public health. In addition to their ability to make a positive impact on public health, social scientists can also influence the development of biomedical innovations. This is particularly important when it comes to addressing the growing problem of aging in our population.

Sociologists study social stratification and discrimination, while anthropologists examine culture and life-course development. Economists study both individual actions and macro-level conditions. Political scientists study formal decision-making processes and the evolution of health systems. Psychologists study the cognitive, affective, and behavioral mediators of social environments. Finally, geneticists contribute their research to population-focused health. But the relationship between population-focused health and social science is complex and often difficult to measure.

This research requires integration with other disciplines. The National Institutes of Health and National Cancer Institute have announced a new research program that addresses social and cultural factors in health and disease. The institutes have set aside $15 million for awards in 2003. While the recommendations are not binding on the NIH, they are a step toward expanding health-related social science research. This will require proactive efforts on the part of social scientists and biomedical researchers.

Intersectoral public health system

An effective public health system must involve multiple sectors and the whole of government, including governmental public agencies, the health care delivery system, and the media. It must be backed by healthy public policy that takes health effects into account. This article discusses several examples of effective intersectoral public health systems. Let's consider two common types of interventions: preventative and curative, and a system that promotes health through education.

One common challenge faced by all sectors is achieving a single, shared purpose. A shared purpose will encourage all participants to participate, and a clear link to political levels will strengthen the initiative. This will create buy-in and enable partners to leverage their resources and implement their mandate in a more efficient way. For example, if a public health agency focuses on chronic disease prevention and control, it can work in tandem with a non-profit organization to help children with asthma.

When implementing an ISA, non-health sectors may be reluctant to engage. Often, a health sector dominates the perspective of other sectors, which makes it difficult for them to be involved. The ISA can also seem like an extra burden. Many participants in the study were not aware of their legal responsibilities. Moreover, the health sector may be less than forthcoming with information about the benefits and downsides of intersectoral collaboration.


Looking for Population Focused Health essay? Place your Order Here


Accountable care organizations

One of the most complex areas within the health industry is population health management. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act strengthened population health management strategies by creating Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) to improve public health outcomes. The Center for Health Care Strategies at Northeastern University and the Urban Health Research and Practice found that traditional fee-for-service payment models have not been effective in strengthening population health management strategies. Alternative reimbursement methods could offer new pathways toward improving public health outcomes.

The most common goal of an ACO is to improve health outcomes and reduce costs. This model involves voluntary groupings of healthcare providers and their payment is tied to quality and cost. These organizations share in savings or potential costs and are a good way to improve quality care. However, the cost savings and quality results are modest. In addition, ACOs have minimal impact on the experience of providers. This new payment model is not the only reason to create an ACO.

The ACO model has many challenges. The most commonly discussed obstacle is the lack of publicly available data. The ACO model requires a provider to report on 34 nationally recognized quality measures across four quality domains. However, there are ways to collect and report on these data. This would allow a payer to make more informed decisions about how to improve quality and cost-effectiveness. However, the National Academy of Medicine recommends that ACOs segment patients to increase their ability to deliver high-quality care while allocating limited resources wisely.

Diabetes

In the United States, the prevalence of diabetes is approximately 12%, with the highest rates among minority populations. As obesity rates have risen, the number of people with diabetes has increased as well. The prevalence of diabetes in older adults has increased nearly 20 percent over the past two decades. The best way to treat diabetes and prevent its complications is through a targeted intervention aimed at improving family health. The CDC's Division of Diabetes Translation provides scientific leadership and technical expertise to improve the health of people with diabetes.

Increasingly, new models of care delivery are being implemented across the country to address the problem. These models are based on the effectiveness of health resources and outcomes of treatment. Tones et al. (2013) explained that by changing lifestyle and behavior, nurses can affect the outcomes of treatment. In addition, the essay emphasizes that community nurses should engage patients in the care plan for diabetes self-care, as this will free up nurses for more complex cases.

Prevention of type 2 diabetes requires high attention and focus on lifestyle interventions. Healthcare providers must evaluate the efficacy of these interventions and determine if they are successful in reducing the prevalence of diabetes in their community. Such programs often involve improving dietary and physical activity habits and altering personal risk factors. For this reason, they should be highly focused on diabetes prevention. These interventions should follow established guidelines and principles deemed to be effective at the community level.

Chronic disease prevention

Public health programs are vital for preventing chronic diseases. These conditions cause the highest number of deaths and are particularly prevalent among low-income populations and communities of color. Chronic diseases contribute 75 percent of U.S. health care spending, and they are preventable. Successful prevention strategies recognize the interplay between social determinants of health, including education, access to health care, and racism. The Partnerships for Population-Focused Health (PHI) program oversees a variety of chronic disease prevention programs that focus on policy change and implementation.

Secondary prevention focuses on early detection of chronic diseases and improving health outcomes by providing prevention services. It involves improving a person's lifestyle and changing social determinants. It may also include clinical preventive services. For example, oral hygiene education is important for preventing dental decay. Many studies show that preventive interventions and screenings help people avoid tooth decay and oral disease. However, there are still some concerns. It's important to remember that the best prevention is a combination of primary and secondary prevention programs.

Public health professionals should be involved in chronic disease prevention efforts. Their expertise can help people avoid complications, improve their quality of life, and reduce their health care costs. By improving links between clinical and community health settings, they can direct patients to proven programs that are supported by health insurance. They can also increase the use of community-delivered interventions and link them to health care systems. There are several important reasons for the CDC to support population-focused health.

Social determinants of health

Socioeconomic status is one of the strongest predictors of mortality and illness worldwide. People in the highest socioeconomic brackets generally have better health than those at the lower end. The same is true across the social gradient. Nevertheless, addressing social determinants of health will not only improve population health, but it will also reduce long-standing health inequities. Here are some of the ways to do so.

One way to address social determinants is through population health management programs. These programs focus on small pieces of the puzzle, such as housing stability. Studies show that health outcomes are better in states with higher ratios of social-to-healthcare spending. One study showed that states that increased their ratio by 20 percent had lower rates of mental illnesses and obesity, as well as reduced associated healthcare spending. However, it may take decades to reduce disparities and see significant improvements in health outcomes.

The main goal of addressing social determinants of health is to improve population health. Health outcomes depend on an array of factors, including genetics, behaviors, environment, and health care. Various studies have shown that social factors are the primary driving force behind health outcomes. For example, loneliness and social isolation are among the greatest risks for health among the senior population. These are growing trends, as baby boomers and other generations reach their senior years.

Community Health Assessments

A Community Health Assessment is a process for identifying community resources and strengths. The assessment focuses on the capabilities of a community and provides a framework for developing services and building communities. Community assessments may consist of demographic data from census records, results of other surveys, or informal feedback from partners and stakeholders. Other methods include focus group discussions, interviews, and surveys of partnership members. In general, community health assessments should include a number of key measures and identify the most relevant and important community resources.

Evidence gap exists in community health assessments

There is a significant evidence gap in community health assessments. These evaluations are important to inform policymakers, but little research has been done on the generalizability of findings. One reason for the lack of granular measures is the high degree of variability among LHAs. For instance, the same LHA may measure different aspects of health in different communities. Using community health assessments to make policy recommendations can help identify areas for improvement and identify ways to improve existing services.

The current evidence available to guide decisions regarding community health and disease prevention and control is inadequate, particularly in areas where people are most vulnerable. There are several key issues that must be addressed in community health assessments. A significant evidence gap exists when the best available evidence does not translate into effective policy and practice. For example, community health assessment tools should be more detailed than the standardized questionnaires that are used in policy-making. Developing these tools should be undertaken by a reputable organization and should be implemented by a qualified individual.


Looking for Community Health Assesment Writing Help? Order your Assignment Here


Another major problem is the lack of policy-evidence partnerships. Several authors, including Briss, have addressed this issue. They note that many of the studies in the literature do not have policy-relevant contexts. Consequently, policymakers and researchers have conflicting perceptions of the processes of evidence use. Rather than relying on researchers' accounts of policy-making processes, researchers should approach policy-makers in a non-prejudiced manner, asking about their activities and how they steer policies.

Another potential problem is that communities and local government agencies do not use community health assessments to determine the effectiveness of community health programs. They might have delivered such programs in the past without having a community health assessment. If this were the case, community health assessments could help local governments identify gaps and maintain adequate service provision. It is possible that there is a reverse causal pathway between community health assessments and chronic disease prevention activities. This may have some unintended consequences, but the findings still support the need for these assessments.

Methods

Methods for community health assessments are tools that combine qualitative and quantitative data to identify specific public health needs and priorities in a community. They should also allow for the identification of health inequities according to socioeconomic status, race, and geography. In addition, they should identify meaningful health indicators. These tools can help communities understand and address the issues that they face. The purpose of community health assessments is to help communities address the challenges of aging and other chronic diseases.

The goal of a community health assessment is to identify key factors that affect the health of a community and determine its resources. Community health assessment data should identify gaps in health services that can be improved through interventions. By gathering and analyzing community data, community health boards can prioritize issues for improvement. In addition to identifying community health needs, the process of community health assessment involves engaging community members and coordinating community resources for impact. The end result is a better community for everyone.

To be effective, community health assessments must be based on valid, actionable measures of community health. Community health assessments can help health departments, hospitals, and other entities better meet community goals and prioritize their services. These data are also important for ensuring accountability in public health and community development. So, it's important to understand how the results of community health assessments are used and how they compare to the results of other health assessments. With this information, community leaders and stakeholders can develop a community health assessment.

A focus group is a valuable tool in conducting a community health assessment. It's important to consider the needs of vulnerable communities when selecting the appropriate questionnaire and interview questions. The survey should be distributed in public places in areas where people live. Distributing it through health fairs and businesses can reach out to people who are not necessarily aware of the existence of the community's health issues. If possible, participants should be asked if they would be willing to participate in a community health assessment in the future. For those who don't live in large cities, using social media, local organizations, and PFACs will be a great help. The survey can be supplemented by interviews with community stakeholders.

Scope

Before starting a community health assessment, you must decide on its scope. Depending on the purpose of your community assessment, it may focus on a single population or a wider geographic area. However, it may also focus on a specific group or community that has disproportionate needs. You should prioritize your data collection and decide what information is important. After collecting all the data, document your findings. Once the community has been surveyed, you can then plan the next steps to improve health and wellness in the community.

Community health assessments will review the demographic and health characteristics of a community and include information about the population's education, racial and ethnic makeup, and smoking habits. They may also examine the incidence of disease, infant mortality, and preventable hospitalization. The process should involve participation from local community groups, schools, and social service providers, in order to accurately reflect the health conditions of the community. They will also be used to guide advocacy efforts and develop policy changes.

To start a community health assessment, it is important to define the focus and the questions to be asked. Community issues are complex, and they often overlap with each other. You can choose to focus on a single issue, or focus on several related issues. Regardless of the scope of the community health assessment, it is essential to establish a shared understanding of the community. So, how do you choose the appropriate focus? There are many ways to conduct a community assessment, but a focus can help you develop a clear path to success.

Community health assessments have several advantages. Community health assessments can reduce health disparities and act as a basis for public health planning and programming. By involving community leaders and local residents, community health assessments can help a community understand which issues are of greatest importance. This information can also help communities understand which resources can be best directed. When a community health assessment is done in the right way, the community can focus on the most important issues in improving health and wellbeing.

Process measures

The Community Health Improvement Process, a framework for health improvement, has been developed by the IOM. It includes two interacting cycles: measurement and action. The first cycle should include the production of a community health profile, which provides the community with basic information about its health. The second cycle should include data-driven recommendations. In addition to process measures, the community health profile should also provide data on the community's quality of life and the number of children with chronic diseases.

In addition to process measures, community health assessments also incorporate a wide range of social and economic factors. For example, the quality and access of health care in a community is measured by the Social and Economic Factors, such as income, employment, family support, and community safety. Lastly, the physical environment and air and water quality are considered in the final health factors category. The final outcome score is an equal-weighted composite of mortality and health-related quality-of-life measures.

Moreover, process measures of community health assessments should be able to track the progress of a community over time. The same goes for community health assessment results that show disparities in the population. Often, a community health assessment report will only highlight those areas where improvements are needed the most. Moreover, the process measures of community health assessments should include data that measure improvements over time, as well as those that compare health outcomes with other communities and the state or national averages.

Process measures of community health assessments should also take into account the collaboration and participation of stakeholders. When implementing a community health assessment, it is important to involve people from outside of the health department, as this will reduce the amount of data collection and reduce confusion caused by multiple studies in one community. Additionally, a collaborative assessment process will ensure greater involvement from citizens in the assessment process, which is a key goal of the IOM Committee on Performance Monitoring in Community Health Improvement.

One method to evaluate community health assessment processes is to create a list of community health-related databases and information systems. These databases and information systems can be used to make decisions based on the information they provide to the community. These databases should be compared with other community health assessments to help build an evidence-base for future CHW programs. This approach is crucial for the community health improvement process. So, how do we measure public health?

Introduction 

The case "Gates v. the Syrian Arab Republic" was filed on August 25th in 2008 at the United States District Court of Columbia by the plaintiffs, who included Francis Gates and Jan Smith. The case was filed against Defendants, who incorporated the Syrian Arab Republic or Syria, the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad; the military of Syria referred to as al-Mukhabarat al-Askariya; and the Director of Military Intelligence, called General Asif Shawkat. In this case, a group of men, who belonged to the terrorist group known as Al-Tawhid wal-Jihad beheaded US civilian contractors, Jack Amstrong and Jack Hensley. They later videotaped the whole incident and played it via the internet for everyone in the world to view, and ultimately, the United States District Court of Columbia to see as well. In this case, the plaintiffs stated that the Syrian government equipped and supported the terrorist group, Al-Tawhid wal-Jihad and its leader, Abu Mus'ab al-Zarqawi, with resources to perpetrate the criminal acts to the American citizens. As a result, the plaintiffs asserted courses of actions under the FSIA Act as well as under the state law. This case is significant because it elaborated the treatment of claims brought under state law and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) against a sovereign and its principals for monetary damages for terrorist actions committed by an organization supported by a sovereign state.

Facts 

In this case, several facts are taken into considerations before arriving at the issues that lead to the ruling. For instance, it is essential to note the fact that Jack Armstrong and Jack Hensley were U.S. civilians and non-combatants who were working for a private construction company in Iraq. These individuals did not offer any armed security or bodyguard security services but offered technical and operational assistance services for the military in non-combat regions in Iraq. Besides, Armstrong had a history of working in foreign countries as a civil construction engineer. Similarly, Jack Hensley had a degree in mathematics and computer science and also worked for an international construction and engineering firm in a foreign land. Further, after the brutal murder, the terrorist group glorified its acts on the internet, which was followed by condemnation by the Muslim world. 

The families (Plaintiff) of the beheaded U.S. civilian contractors, Armstrong and Hensley, alleged that the Syrian Arab Republic (Syria) (Defendant), its president (Defendant), and its intelligence minister (Defendant), were liable under the FSIA, for money damages for the beheadings because Syria actively and knowingly supported al-Qaeda in Iraq. Al-Tawhid wal-Jihad also known as "al-Qaeda in Iraq" beheaded U.S. civilian contractors Armstrong and Hensley, and their families brought suit against Syria, its president, and its intelligence minister, seeking damages under the FSIA and asserting state-law claims for battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful death; survival damages, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting. 

The plaintiffs also claimed that Syria, acting through· the principals of the defendants, offered material assistance and resources to al-Qaeda in Iraq and its leader. Because none of the defendants filed an answer or otherwise appeared, the Court proceeded to a default setting, which under the FSIA requires the entry of a default judgment against a non-responding foreign state where the claimant proves its case to the Court's satisfaction. After reviewing the evidence presented, the Court concluded that support for Zarqawi and his al-Qaeda network from Syrian territory or Syrian government actors could not have been accomplished without the authorization of the Syrian government and its military intelligence. The Court then addressed the issue of whether Syria could be held liable for money damages under the FSIA for the beheadings of Armstrong and Hensley.

Issues 

There are several issues involved in this case. For instance, the first issue consists of the question, which tends to inquire whether state-law claims can be dismissed where plaintiffs assert that they are victims of state-sponsored terrorism. The other issue is whether a sovereign state may be held liable under the FSIA's state-sponsored terrorism exception, where it is shown that terrorist acts against U.S. citizens were committed by terrorists knowingly supported by the sovereign state to advance the sovereign's policy objectives. Further, another issue involves whether money damages for economic damages, solatium, pain, and suffering, and punitive damages may be awarded under the FSIA against a state sponsor of terrorism for outrageous acts of terrorism against U.S. citizens committed by terrorists supported by the state sponsor. Once these issues are wholly considered, the Court can then proceed to offer the verdict of the case. The decision will be based on the fact and matters of the case at hand.

Decision 

In this case, the Court ruled that state law claims must be dismissed where plaintiffs assert that they are victims of state-sponsored terrorism. Similarly, the Court ruled that a sovereign state may be held liable under the FISA’s state-sponsored terrorism exception, where it is shown that terrorist acts against US citizens were committed by terrorists knowingly supported by the sovereign to advance the sovereign’s policy objectives. Further, the Court ruled that monetary damages for economic damages, solatium, pain, and suffering, and punitive damages may be awarded under the FSIA against a state sponsor of terrorism for outrageous acts of terrorism against US citizens committed by terrorists supported by the state sponsor.

Reasoning on the Decision 

In this case, the damages provision used by the court to award various money damages in this case was enacted in 2008 in an effort by Congress to assist victims in satisfying their judgments against state sponsors of terrorism as well as for the clarification that the cause of acts provided in the terrorist state exception applies not only to agents, employees, or officials of the state sponsorship but also to the state itself. As a result, the state-law claims must be dismissed where plaintiffs assert that they are victims of state-sponsored terrorism. Under the FSIA Act, U.S. citizens who are victims of state-sponsored terrorist acts can sue a responsible foreign state directly. As a result, the Congress offered the "specific source of law" for recovering and thus eliminated the inconsistencies that arose under state law in such cases. In this case, the families, who are the Plaintiffs effectively brought suit only against Syria, the defendant, because they claimed that all the named defendants should be treated as the foreign state itself. The only cause of action permissible against Syria was the federal cause of action under the FSIA Act, and the state-law claims must be dismissed. 

Besides, from the ruling, a sovereign may be held liable under the FSIA's state-sponsored terrorism Act except in cases where it is proven that terrorist actions against U.S. citizens were committed by terrorists knowingly supported by the sovereign state to advance the sovereign's policy objectives. In this case, it has been illustrated to the court's satisfaction that it was Syria’s foreign policy to support al-Qaeda in Iraq to topple the nascent Iraqi democratic government and thwart the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Syria's aid to the terrorist group's leader for at least three years was not unknowing, and, given prior actions of terrorism against civilians by al-Qaeda in Iraq, it was foreseeable that Zarqawi and his terrorist organization would again repeat similar actions. Thus, the murders of Armstrong and Hensley were a foreseeable consequence of Syria's aid and support to Zarqawi and al-Qaeda in Iraq, and there is jurisdiction over Syria to support damages under the FSIA. 

Further, from the ruling, money damages for economic damages, solatium, pain, and suffering, and punitive damages may be awarded under the FSIA Act against a state sponsor of terrorism for outrageous acts of terrorism against U.S. citizens committed by terrorists supported by the state sponsor. Damages for a private action for proven acts of terrorism by foreign states under the FSIA Act may include economic losses, solatium, pain and suffering, and punitive damages. The amount of punitive damages awarded for personal injury or death resulting from an act of state-sponsored terrorism depends on the nature of the injury, the character of the terrorist act, the need for deterrence, and the wealth of the state sponsor. As with other punitive damages, the goal is to punish those who engage in outrageous conduct and to deter others from engaging in similar behavior. Besides, if various significant punitive damages awards issued against foreign state sponsorship of terrorism, the state's financial capacity to provide funding will be curtailed. Therefore, a default judgment is entered against Syria in the following amounts as decided by the Court.

Bibliography

Güçtürk, Yavuz. "War crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria." Insight Turkey 17, no. 1 (2015): 27.

Hilpold, Peter. "The evolving right of counter-terrorism: An analysis of SC resolution 2249 (2015) in view of some basic contributions in International Law literature." Questions of International Law 24 (2016): 15-34.

Lajeunesse, Gabriel C. "Francis Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic, 2008 WL 4367284 (DDC 2008)." (2009).

Passafaro, Thomas E. "Statutory Interpretation-Plain Language Reading of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Precludes Terrorist Victims from Retribution-Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 830 F. 3d 470 (7th Cir. 2016)." Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev. 40 (2017): 203.

Speichert, Alyssa N. "The Persepolis Complex: A Case for Making the Collections Process Easier Under Section 1610 (g) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for Victims of Foreign State-Sponsored Terrorism." Mich. St. L. Rev. (2017): 547.

Scholarly writing in nursing is writing of formal work in an academic setting to convey ideas and make arguments for scholarly conversation. Scholarly writing is impersonal but formal and factual. Term paper, research paper, these and dissertation are some of the works that nursing students write. Most academic papers might have their stylistic conventions, but they share writing characteristics that that help in writing a quality paper.

Read more: Tips for scholarly writing in nursing

A nursing associate (NA) is a position to work within the nursing team providing care and support to patients and other healthcare service users. It is among the new roles in nursing that started in England. Trainees get an apprenticeship for all areas of nursing enabling them to work across different healthcare areas. Most of the trainees are recruits from existing roles they perform as healthcare assistants. The purpose of a nursing associate role is to train healthcare workers who bridge the gap between registered nurses and health care assistants.

Read more: Becoming a nursing associate