No description available.

No description available.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Murdoch University, 2003. / Thesis submitted to the Division of Arts. Bibliography: p. 276-291.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Iowa, 2008. / English and Icelandic. Thesis supervisor: Ann Marie McCarthy. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 187-201).

Theses (M.S.N.)--Marshall University, 2005. / Title from document title page. Includes abstract. Document formatted into pages: contains vii, 100 pages. Bibliography: p. 58-61.

Thesis, PlanA (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Stout, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references.

Sense of Coherence consists of 3 dimensions; comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness and Hardiness consists of dimensions; control, challenge and commitment. These are considered to be personal approaches to life which increase resilience, both improving and prolonging health. They have been widely accepted by the psychological community and used in both clinical and occupational settings. Despite their wide appeal however, there appear to be considerable questions surrounding their validity. The validity and clinical utility of these 2 questionnaires was examined in relation to personality using the Eysenck Personality' Inventory and to psychological well-being using the General Health Questionnaire 12 -item version. Data were collected from university students, Open University students, and a group of men from mixed occupational backgrounds such as Social Services, Police, National Health Service. These were examined using correlational statistics, differences, distributions, non-linear relationships, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Findings suggested that personality may be a confounding variable in the measurement of the these constructs and that this may explain the relationship with psychological health. Sex differences were also found in the scores and were considered as a possible extraneous variable in interpretation of findings which are based on mixed sex data. The factor structure of each questionnaire was found to be inconsistent with those proposed by the original authors and it was recommended that the measures should not be used clinically in their present form.

The discussion surrounding the development of health promotion in the last thirty years has been a contentious one. Concern with the terminology, the disciplinary base and the effectiveness and quality of practice have characterised much of the debate. This may have appeared as a negative force in its development. It really served however, to demonstrate a more positive approach, by harnessing the vitality and critical awareness of academics and practitioners in the field who wished to take the debate forward. This overview and supporting projects A and B, demonstrate the author's original contribution to the knowledge base within health promotion. The discussion on the semantic differences between health education, health promotion and public health had been largely resolved by the late 1980s, and attention turned to other intellectual and practical issues. The author introduced the discussion on the disciplinary base of health promotion by co-editing the first text in this area in 1992. It demonstrated that the disciplinary roots of health promotion helped to form an organised body of knowledge, which, together with health promotion as a practitioner discipline, fuelled the rise of multi-disciplinarity in thinking and practice. From this disciplinary base the author contributed original ideas, through published papers and conference presentations, on the role theory should play in health promotion and the need to have a theoretical bases for interventions. In particular the author posited the idea that theory should form a critical and integral part of the input stage of an intervention. These particular contributions to knowledge form the bases for the first project, Project A 'Grounding and developing itself.' The author was also instrumental in synergising quality assurance with effectiveness in a second co-edited book and related journal articles. Here, the contribution to knowledge accepted standard quality assurance programmes' contribution to health promotion but moved the thinking forward. The book highlighted quality assurance measures which were unique to health promotion, that were distinguishable from mainstream health care developments, but critically also linked them to effectiveness studies. This second contribution forms the second project, Project B ' Proving and improving itself. Together these contributions to developments, through their search for the epistemological roots of health promotion, helped to establish health promotion as emerging disciplinary force. The aim of the portfolio is to demonstrate, through this overview and the two projects, the intellectual history of health promotion through the 1990s. This is achieved by first examining the disciplinary and theoretical roots to health promotion as inputs to practice; and secondly by analysing the approach to evidence and quality assurance in health promotion as aspects of the output in health promotion interventions. The portfolio overview firstly examines the development of health promotion in the last quarter of the last century before focusing on the disciplinary roots and the contribution of theory to that development. It then critiques the emerging debate on evidence based health promotion and the concern with quality. These twin themes are addressed making use of the arguments and concepts developed by the author over the last ten years indicating his essential and original contributions to the debate. The overview makes use of recent policy papers and strategies to illustrate these developments. Finally the overview concludes by illustrating the author's contribution to the emergence of health promotion as a 'discipline' and field of study with a unique three stage model designed to summarise his work in this area.

This study explores the Child-to-Child approach to health education. Child-to-Child claims that children can be effective promoters of health. The thesis provides an analysis and criticism of Child-to-Child, comparing theory with practice in the Little Teacher Programme in Botswana. It examines how Child-to-Child has sought to keep abreast of new thinking and to respond to experience and considers the extent to which its ideas have been implemented. It explores whether primary school children can be effective health educators and seeks to identify factors enabling or inhibiting their effectiveness. Research questions are focused in three main areas. First, what is meant by the Child-to-Child approach to health education? What does Child-to- Child mean theoretically? To what extent has current thinking departed from the original conceptualization of the approach? What does Child-to-Child mean to the practitioners of the Little Teacher Programme in Botswana and how successfully have they applied its ideas and methods? Second, how effective can children be as health educators using the Child-to-Child approach? A field study of the Little Teacher Programme is included to test the hypothesis that child educators can raise the knowledge level of preschool children and that performing their role can increase their own knowledge level. An extension of the main field study addresses a further question, what is the influence of the poor urban environment and of ethnicity on the effectiveness of children as health educators? Third, how can children be effective health educators and what factors enable or impede their effectiveness? The study considers how social, cultural and environmental factors may influence health behaviours. The study concludes that children can be effective health educators at the level of knowledge change but raises serious questions about the failure of Child-to-Child to take account of traditional resistance to some of its central ideas.

This dissertation presents an analysis of the health promotion measures implemented in Iceland in recent years as a case study of a discourse on multi-level governmentality. I interpret these measures as techniques aiming to fabricate a specific kind of individual, inclined to exert self-surveillance and to act according to the notions and practices of biomedicine. I introduce multinational corporations, supranational authorities and biomedical profession as rival centres of powers, contending nation state's governance supremacy. I situate my investigation within a specific historical and social context. I explore the profound changes in lifestyle experienced by Icelanders in the last few decades with regard to the progressive opening of the country to the global market. I then focus on the role played in Iceland by health care professionals, often considered unable to offer impartial advice in the best interest of the patients. I explain how this negative perception of the biomedical profession obliged political authorities to re-evaluate the nature of health promotion initiatives and of the tactics employed to foster the expected conduct. I stress how frequent appeals to individuals' sense of responsibility not only for their own wellbeing, but for that of society as a whole, have made use of a powerful rhetoric playing on the sense of belonging to the Icelandic community. Hence, I show how Icelandic citizens have often proved compliant with state initiatives and attribute such compliance to government attempts to portray itself as a defender of the common welfare. Although representing a common motif in the history of most western democracies, this protective role undertaken by the state assumes a distinctive symbolic value in Iceland, where it evokes deeply rooted discourses on the need to preserve the political and biological identity of the Icelanders and, with it, the future of the nation.