by Begna Dugassa
Original Research
Background: The contemporary understanding of health and diseases has evolved from the Judeo/Christian/Islamic literature to the biomedical knowledge and then to the World Health Organization (WHO), definition. All these definitions consistently focused on deficit model and equivocally claimed universality. Although the impacts of injustice to health are well known, these definitions did not give adequate attention to the social and environmental injustices as disease-causing agents. Methods: Having in mind that knowledge is socially constructed, in this paper I reviewed literatures on the evolutionary changes in our understanding of health and diseases and made effort to trace the significant changes made in our understanding health through time and the concepts that are kept in those changes. I also looked at the significance of maintaining the deficit model and universality in disease prevention and health promotion. Results: Although there are changes in our understanding of health and diseases, the contemporary definition has significant deficits. Those definitions are not only incomplete and they are also biased. The definition gives us theoretical underpinning for actions, the contemporary understanding of health hindered us from effectively promoting health. Not only that, these definitions victimized the victim and made the gaps in the life expectancy between countries and within a country as a natural and enviable reality. Conclusions: To effectively promote health, prevent diseases and reduce health disparities we need to widen our way of thinking about health, depart from the Eurocentric ideas and provide theoretical rationales that foster the “upstream” public health approach. In the Oromo perspectives, health and peace are intertwined. For them, personal health/peace are intertwined with the peace/health of the family, community and natural world as well as divine power. For them, peace includes social and environmental justices.
American Journal of Public Health Research. 2018, 6(6), 243-252. DOI: 10.12691/ajphr-6-6-2
Pub. Date: January 01, 2019
5959 Views1424 Downloads
by Awatif Altahir, Asma Abd Alaal, Amal Mohammed and Dalya Eltayeb
Original Research
The access to good quality hospital care during childbirth has been identified as a key strategy in increasing maternal and infant survival. In spite of that, home delivery was 79.5% according to the Sudan 2010 Household Survey. Previous evidence tells that one of the major factors deterring pregnant women from delivering at a health facility is disrespectful and abusive treatment by the health care providers. This study attempted to measure the proportion of disrespectful and abusive care (D&A) during childbirth among women in Khartoum state in 2016 and to determine the types of D&A within selected health facilities. A descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out in three hospitals in Khartoum State, Sudan. The distribution of the sample to health facilities was made proportionately based on the number of clients who received childbirth services at each facility. Using a semi-structured questionnaire, 263 mothers were interviewed in which the disrespect and abuse during childbirth was measured under seven categories using 15 performance indicators that were pre-set by Bowser & Hill’s landscape analysis. Respondents who experienced at least one category of D&A were 77.2%. The proportion of women who had a low, medium and high level of D&A was 39.3%, 32.3% and 5.6% respectively. The most common categories of D&A were found to be Non-confidential care (79.8%), Non-consented care (71.5%) & Abandonment of care (21.7%). The proportion of D&A during childbirth is very high, these findings should alert all stakeholders who aim at reducing maternal mortality. Presence of protocols that regulate respectful and non-abusive care was identified but these results raise the question of adherence to protocols; therefore, health administrators should study and validate these protocols and their proper implementation.
American Journal of Public Health Research. 2018, 6(6), 237-242. DOI: 10.12691/ajphr-6-6-1
Pub. Date: November 28, 2018
7866 Views1811 Downloads