Public Health Partnerships Essay - 1650 Words

Public Health Partnerships (Essay Sample) Content: Public Health PartnershipsName:Course:Tutor:InstitutionDate:Population health is improved by investment and other various determinants; this is due to the nature of resources. The resources tend to be limited and scarce. Improvement of public health does not just rely on medical care, or merely just public health but it also depends on the social environment, income jobs, the physical environment, our behavior and even to some extent genetics. There is no single person, not even the government, who holds the sole responsibility for all those determinants. So the involvement of partnerships in public health is more like a multi-sectorial solution. Partnerships play a vital role in reflecting the way that health is produced in a broad way. Partnerships may be required to either; come up with metrics of measuring a populations health outcome or bring into practice incentives that are financial or non-financial at either a community level or national level in order to sti mulate movements towards a populations health outcome (Fawcett, et al., 2010). This paper shall explain the different types of partnerships that health agencies can have and analyze two separate public health partnerships. Most populations at risk need public health partnerships; these serve as a form of collective action undertaken to promote health and prevent injury or diseases. A collective action is when organizations agree to coordinate activities in the pursuit of shared objectives. Organizations that are in partnership benefit through sharing of information and expertise human and material resources and intangible resources like trust and visibility. In some cases partnerships allow organizations to combine operations and realize economies of scope and scale in the production of public health services (Mays Scutchfield, 2010). At the same time it is possible to have coordinated delivery of related programs and services, these results in a larger combined impact on populati on health. In this way partnerships allow organizations to pursue objectives that may not be possible through independent actions. The type of partnership that health care givers go into depends partly on the size of the market and the position of the contributing organizations. For organizations that serve large segments of the community go into partnerships because they stand to gain large shares of any public goods that are produced through collective action. On the other hand small organizations stand the chance to achieve economies of scale through partnerships by providing public health activities collaboratively that would be unfeasible or inefficient to produce independently (Shortell, 2010). The main reason for organizations to pursue public health partnerships are; the desire to reach new target populations, expand the quality or quantity of services and/or influence high-priority health issues. In general the reasons are noneconomic. This noneconomic nature tends to attra ct together organizations that have closely compatible missions. This in turn results in a preponderance of government and nonprofit fit participants in many public health partnerships.The purpose of partnerships is to accomplish various health functions they may include but not limited to information exchange, planning and policy development and implementation of various programs and policies (Partnerships to improve community health: an interview with Professor David Kindig of MATCH, 2010). Partnerships are able to focus on information exchange through surveillance, epidemiologic investigation, needs assessment and research translation activities. Some examples of partnerships that have been made in order to offer information exchange include syndrome surveillance systems, sentinel provider networks for influenza and health registries such as those for monitoring cancer, vaccination and communicable diseases (Mays Scutchfield, 2010). Recently some communities have formed partners hips, they support exchange of electrical health information for clinical decision making as well as public health surveillance and research. The relationships among participants determine the quality of information generated through partnerships. Through policy development and planning partnerships are able to promote coordination and avoid duplication among organizations that would have otherwise worked independently. In most cases partnerships form as a result of community wide assessment and performance measurement processes that identify unmet needs and opportunities for coordination. This was seen in the National Association of County and City Health Officials mobilizing for Action through Planning and Partnerships program, or Centers for Disease Control and Preventions National Public Health Performance Standards program (Bailey, 2010). In some instances partnerships also take up the role of advocacy coalitions in developing and promoting policy proposals for common interest . Since partnerships can be termed as social networks formed among organizations and as such a substantial body of knowledge about social network plays a crucial role in elucidating these collaborations. Network coverage reflects the array of different players that contributes to the amount and type of organizational resources that may be contributed (Shortell, 2010). Network density can be termed as the amount of interconnectedness between organizations. This facilitates their capability of working together. Centrality of network reveals the relative influence of a particular organization within a partnership. This is important when it comes to coordinating and focusing collaborative actions. According to various research that have been carried out these constructs, influence partnership functioning, though their magnitudes and mechanism of effect in public health are greatly unknown (Woulfe et al., 2010; Fawcett, et al., 2010).In recent years according to research both the breadth of organizations contributing to public health activities and the scope of their participation have been on the rise. In a study of partnerships in US communities that involved at least 100,000 residents it was discovered that significant increases had occurred from 1998 to 2006 in the types of organizations that participate in public health activities as shown below (Bailey, 2010). The figure below shows prevalence of 7 public health partnership configurations between 1998 and 2006 the error bars show 95% confidence intervals. The seven configurations were identified through multivariate cluster analysis, each one distinguished by network breadth, centrality and density. Density represents the amount of interconnectedness between organizations; while centrality represents the relative influence of a single organization within a partnership; and Breadth represents the array of actors involved in the partnerships (Partnerships to improve community health: an interview with Professor David Kindig of MATCH, 2010). It came as no surprise that state and local government agencies were among the most frequent contributors to public health partnerships as seen in the figure above. On the other hand hospitals, physicians, community health centers, and universities significantly increased their participation over time.
From the figure its also evident that public health partnerships adhere to 1 of 7 distinct structural configurations based on density, centrality and network breadth. Of these seven three configurations support a broad and comprehensive scope of public health activities and one relies heavily on the work of government public health agencies while the other two delegate considerable responsibility to other partner organizations (Woulfe et al., 2010). At the same time two partnership configurations deliver an intermediate scope of public health activities and differ primarily in the centrality of the local public health agency in these activities. While th e last two configurations deliver a limited scope of public health activities and differ in both the centrality and density (Fawcett, et al., 2010). Partnerships freque...

Use Of Free Speech In Colleges - Free Essay Example

Over the past couple of years, issues regarding the use of free speech and expressing it has become move apparent around the country in colleges and universities. Most college students are considered snowflakes, which means that they have been and still are spoiled and coddled by their parents. These students tend to be easily offended by words and small insults, incapable of tolerating opinions that deviate away from some politically correct belief and unwilling to engage in strong passionate debates. This argument is frail and wrong in various ways, and can be offensive when considering the reality of students experiences today. While there is a substantial reason for concern about the severity of anxiety students undergo today, they are, typically, the least coddled generation of students ever. For instance, 34 percent of students at the University of Washington, are the first in their families to attend college and about a third of its in-state students come from families making less than $40,000 a year (Cauce). In addition, ethnic diversity among college students is higher than ever before. In contrast, college were once focused and meant for mainly upper-class white men, gender or class coeducation classrooms were not common in universities until the sixties or seventies. Students during those years hardly had their open-mindedness or views tested by difference, because their life was mostly confined within a homogeneous environment where there was not a need for students to deal with true socioeconomic diversity or diversity in general. Furthermore, for an average college student in this era, the pressure to succeed is high due to the cost of failure is much higher. Getting a C from a decent college will no longer automatically lead to a high-paying job in the financial sector. There is, without a doubt, some traditional perspectives when it comes to social values, besides students are not encouraged to openly express their thoughts in a manner that can be construed as stereotypical, homophobic or prejudice. In more recent years, that view has also regrettably transferred over directing conservative ideologies in general, which is an aspect society should strive to address. Moreover, institutions are typically the greatest place to witness a diverse environment ethnically, diplomatically, economically in which many attendees have or will soon encounter. They regularly live in a world of differences which was rare, if not unknown of, for college students in the past. Universities are by their very nature places for discussion and debate of controversial issues. These disputes are undeniably vital to the instructive experience and for growing citizens becoming prepared to participate in democracy. Students should be capable to evaluate a dispute and be prepared to rebuttal or negate. Critically analyzing an argument and the ability to reason for oneself is and ought to be the trademark of a higher-level education. The reason for a debate and research is to produce light, not just heat. Most individuals with an extensive variety of viewpoints visit schools and do just that. Even more common, students are revealed to numerous, conflicting perspectives on issues of present and enduring interest in class discussions, in books and articles, on class-related chat rooms and message boards, and in coffee shops and residence halls. Such passionate, reasoned debates where the goal is to win on the force of ideas, not by suppressing or drowning out opponents when there even are opponents (not everything has to be an argument) commonly occur. The polarization of recent years has made debates more difficult on topics that have become politicized, such as those related to race, gender or immigration status, but that is not a problem unique to college students. We have to look long and hard to find good examples of tough, incisive yet civil discourse across differences on such topics. Its certainly not something we often see on TV, in social media or in the national political arena. Given the broader social and political climate, it should come as no surprise then that students and members of our community can falter when they try to have healthy debates on some topics, whether inside or outside the classroom. Engagement in honest, direct dialogue across important differences is rare indeed, but its simply not fair to blame this generation of youth for the fact it seldom happens. Additionally, something often missed whenever theres coverage of a speech shouted down on campus is that those doing the shouting are often not students, faculty or staff members, but organized groups from outside the academy. Todays college students, like those of generations before them, have their own signature style born of their distinct experiences. They have grown up with a much greater appreciation for the real injury that sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia and other forms of bigotry can inflict on others. They were taught, at home and in school, to not tolerate bullies and to report them to authorities. Some colleges have student conduct codes that explicitly prohibit abuse of others, including harassment, bullying and discrimination. Therefore, it is confusing to many students that speakers can come to campuses and engage in behaviors that students themselves would be disciplined for. There is a critical reason for including the right to free speech and expression in the very first amendment to our Constitution. It should be abundantly clear that, in recent years, some speakers come to campuses not seeking to discuss difficult topics but instead seeking to create a spectacle to advance their fame and agenda whether that is selling books or peddling a hateful ideology. Their rancorous approach, and usually their content as well, is clearly intended to provoke a reaction, not produce understanding. They seek to produce heat, not light. They are using colleges as their stages and setting us up as their foils. Indeed, being blocked from speaking is often seen by them as a victory in their efforts to portray themselves as free speech martyrs. Many of their followers try to silence others through doxing and other intimidation, with rarely a word of condemnation from the supposed heroes of free expression. Why are those who intentionally seek to generate heat, not light, allowed to speak at a university? Their messages often go against the very values of the institutions, and besides, what they have to say is readily available online. If it is a public university, the answer starts with the First Amendment and subsequent laws and court rulings. Collectively they establish that public institutions cannot discriminate based on the viewpoints expressed, no matter how repugnant. Reasonable time, manner and place restrictions and act to protect public safety can be established, but by law the school cannot do so based on the viewpoint of a speaker. However, it also goes beyond the legal obligation. Speech by people we persistently disagree with, and that is in fact hateful and repugnant, is the price people pay for democracy and to ensure their own freedom of speech. When the government is given the power to become the arbiter of what views are acceptable, then society has taken a step toward authoritarianism. There is no agreed-upon definition of what speech is hateful; Im reminded of the young man who stood in the heart of a campus with a sign saying Abortion Is a Hate Crime. As recently evidenced, some believe that the simple act of kneeling while the national anthem is played is a sign of disrespect for our country and should be banned. How does society progress and move forward? I dont pretend to have all the answers, but since I am a student it might not be surprising that the first thing, Id suggest is more education. Weve seen great emphasis on the STEM disciplines, and given their importance to our modern, technological economy, rightfully so but there has been too little emphasis placed on civic education. That leaves students and far, far too many in our society unable to answer basic questions like, What institutions must follow the First Amendment? and Why does it protect hate speech? STEM education is vital for a healthy economy. Comprehensive civics education is vital for a healthy democracy. Students need to understand their rights are worth protecting and to recognize the difference between speakers encouraging true discourse and those seeking self-promotion. Learning to recognize that difference starts with academic rigor. Faculty are trained to teach students how to investigate subjects with strong policies that question assumptions, rely on evidence, evaluate sources and equip students to assess the credibility of information and the person delivering it. Second, when there is a controversial speaker, we must find ways to add light to the discussion or, at the very least, not contribute to the heat. Shutting down speakers elevates their message and frees them from having their ideas scrutinized. Frankly, violence and mayhem only strengthen authoritarian movements. There are many, many ways to stand in opposition to a person you disagree with. As educators, we have a role in encouraging students to do so in such a way that rights are respected. To accomplish that goal, our communities can and should engage in counterprogramming, creating alternative events and gathering spaces, signaling to students that while everyone has the right to speak, our communities can come together in rejecting hateful messages. As leaders, we have the power of the bully pulpit to condemn offensive ideas even when we must also defend a speakers right to express them. What we must not do is stand silent the very reason we defend someone elses right to speak is because we must treasure and exercise our own. Educators have the opportunity to teach the next generation of leaders and citizens that more speech and more understanding are the tools with which to preserve and defend their rights.