Journal Entry 3

By Megan Thomson

John Germovs, Second Opinion Fifth Edition, Chapter 24 elaborated on the Sociology of Health
Promotion (Germov, 2014). I found chapter 24 interesting, as the text is applicable to school settings,
influencing my future practices. I learnt that the individualist health promotion relates to health
education on lifestyle change and unpacks the notion of right and wrong in health context. This
promotion persuades people to make the right choices (Germov, 2014). I also developed and
understanding of the structuralist-collectivist health promotion which focuses on involving the
community with health programs and developing health legislations (Germov, 2014).

I can connect with the individualist health promotion with my past health education experience at
school. I was taught that we should have control over our behaviours in regard to negative health
habits. For example, I had similar experience outlined in John Germovs Second Opinion Fifth Edition
because teachers implemented the individualist health promotion to raise awareness of the negative
impacts associated with smoking (Germov, 2014). Even though it is important that the individualist
health promotion advises students not to smoke and elaborates on the negative health impacts it has
been proven that there is a lack of success with being able to impact long term behaviours, as there is
nothing being physically done to make students not smoke in the future (Germov, 2014). Although, in
saying this, I do believe it is important for students to be aware of the negative consequences of
smoking but there needs to be more emphasis of structural change, such as changing the packaging to
put people off smoking, highlighting the importance of the governments role in needing to increase
the price of cigarettes and recognising the urgency to have more smoking restrictions in public
venues.

The individualist health promotion influences societies attitudes towards smoking, creating a negative
unhealthy perception of smoking. However, the structuralist-collectivist health promotion restricts
people to be able to smoke. The legislation and community action physically stops people from
smoking. The individualist health promotion and structuralist-collectivist health promotion therefore
influence each other. The individualist promotion stimulates the structural-collectivist promotion by
changing ones attitudes creating a structural change. The combination of both health promoting
strategies creates more immediate and successful results. In future practices I will implement the two
health promoting strategies in an engaging and encouraging manner to make health education a
priority in teaching and to establish and maintain healthy lifestyles. Chapter 24 of John Germovs text
has allowed me to reflect on my past health experience and what I need to develop in future practices
as I was only taught with the individualist health promotion in primary and secondary school. I now
recognize the necessity of both health promoting strategies.

The workshop allowed me to understand and connect with John Germovs text. The workshop
demonstrated how the individualist health promotion and structuralist health practices are being
successfully and unsuccessfully implemented in a school environment. For example, Jenn discussed
how students at her school previously had a negative attitude towards the Jump Rope For Heart Day.
Students started to get bored because the same activities were being repeated every year. The year 6
and 7 students started to grow out of skipping and thought skipping was for younger children. Jenn
also discussed another dilemma that the childrens main reason to contribute was to raise a particular
amount of money to collect a prize. The students did not understand the sole purpose of the practice. I
can strongly relate to this because when I was in primary school, children had the same attitudes,
which was to raise money to win a prize. When I was younger I even did this as all my peers were
talking about the prizes they wanted to win. At school I do not recall people talking about the impact
the money makes to the foundation.

I liked how Jenn created a community practice following the structuralist-collectivist health
promotion and the individualist health promotion aspects. The development of the practice was an
effective way to change the attitudes of the students towards Jump Rope for Heart Day. The day was
changed so that the teachers would buddy the year 7s up with younger students, giving them a
leadership role. I had a similar experience to this from when I was in primary school. Teachers also
buddied us up with older or younger students and I remember thinking how exciting it was. I will
carry this out into my further teaching practices and implement this as I believe students thoroughly
enjoy being paired up with either a younger or older students and enjoy learning off one another. The
year 7s gain a leadership role and are a role model for the younger students. This is an example of
both individualist health promotion and structuralist-collectivist health promotion as Jenn is
encouraging students to participate and persuade students to join to create positive health benefits
and donate money to a good cause. There is also a community program involving all students of
different abilities and ages, physically making a difference.

I can relate to the negatives associated with the individualist health promotion from personal
experience. Germov points that the promotion simplifies psychological change whilst it is challenging
(Germov, 2014). I agree with this because changing a habit is simplified, which I can relate to on a
personal level and many people can relate to. Correlating with Germov I can also connect to a quote
stated by a study in Sydney that mentions the healthy choice is not that easy to do even if you know it,
believe in it and want to do it (Ritchie et al. 1994, p. 101). This quote can also relate to most people. I
strongly connect with this because if there is unhealthy food and healthy food it is very tempting to
take the unhealthy option because it meets your wants and expectations. I constantly find it a
challenge to take a healthy option if an unhealthy option is available. Hence, the individualist health
promotion varies on successfulness depending on the persons behaviours and attitudes. This is a
complex and persistent issue arising with this health promoting strategy.

The criticism in regard to the structuralist-collectivist approach is that it wastes community resources
and leads to victim blaming. It was discussed that it should focus on social situations as to why people
make these decisions. I found it in particularly interesting that William Cockerham argues that the
individualist health promotion is most effective due to some people not being able to achieve
structural approaches as it relies on affordability and accessibility (Germov, 2014). His example is
from a study conducted in Canada looking at five middle low income women whom budgeted food for
their families and their food preferences were reliant on their income, limiting their capacity to
choose appropriate foods (Germov, 2014). This example strongly links to my second journal entry as
people consume particular foods depending of affordability and accessibility (Germov, 2014.)
Therefore in my opinion the structuralist-collectivist approach relies on resources and money whilst
the individualist approach is only successful if there is motivation and long term consistency, which is
generally lacked. Both of the approaches have positive and negative aspects and the most appropriate
promotion depends on contributing factors such as; the persons preferability and their best way to
develop healthy lifestyle habits although this also depends on their social status and their accessibility
to appropriate resources.

The Ottawa Charter also known as the The Move Towards a New Public Health identifies the aspects
of health promotion. This integrates health education and behaviour strategies, also focusing on
structural strategies to address the social determinants of health (Germov, 2014). From analysing
this model I believe it covers all the important aspects of health promotion to educate the growing
generation and build a healthy public policy. To be able to reach these standards I have gathered an
understanding that both individualist and structuralist-collectivist health promotions need to be
imbedded to efficiently create awareness and impact the public health positively.

After the workshop and reading chapter 24 of John Germovs Second Opinion Fifth Edition I am now
aware of what I will implement in future practices. This will be a combination of individualist health
promotion and structuralist-collectivist health promotion. I believe to have a healthy society there
needs to be a implementation of individualist health promotion to persuade people to change their
lifestyle and structuralist-collectivist health promotion to physically take action to create a healthy
society e.g community programs need to be implemented and legislation needs to be developed
revolving around health issues. It is vital that the health promotion strategies are positively
implemented encouraging a healthy lifestyle.

Reference List

Williams, L. & Germov, J. (2014) A Sociology of Health Promotion, Chapter 24 in J. Germov (ed.) Second Opinion 5th edition
South Melbourne: Oxford University Press