FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1997452175> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1997452175 endingPage "650" @default.
• W1997452175 startingPage "649" @default.
• W1997452175 abstract "I always read with interest any nursing article that professes to deal with health promotion and this was no less so with Irvine's recent article regarding ‘health promotion’ competencies as they relate to the discipline of district nursing. It is timely that more nursing-specific articles are addressing what they perceive to be health promotion issues – even if it is not actually health promotion that they are really addressing. Irvine's article is no exception to the emerging tide of recent nursing-specific literature that is conceptually confused when it comes to health promotion activity. This is not a major problem, at this juncture, because such articles serve as a useful springboard to rectify the situation by allowing the real context and location of health promotion to surface through debate such as this. Where it becomes a problem, however, is if, in the face of the established position of health promotion in today's context, nursing continues to disregard later perspectives in favour of ‘old-guard’ regimes and practices. I have been one of those who particularly seek to champion the real‘new’ context of health promotion (which actually is not that new anymore) in the hope of moving things on for health-related activity in nursing (i.e. Whitehead 2001, 2003a,c, 2004, 2005). What Irvine (2005) refers to in her article as the ‘new paradigm’ of health promotion and her additional use of the term ‘traditional health promotion’ are very much out-of-date and outmoded concepts. She uses Maben and Macleod-Clark's (1995) concept analysis as a basis for her interpretation of health promotion as it pertains to the study's highlighted competencies. As we can already see this article is a decade old and has been both critiqued and superseded by a more recent concept analysis, that identifies current health promotion process in its much broader context of socio-political process, overall population health strategy and ‘whole’ community empowerment (Whitehead 2004). This type of activity is now inherent in the majority of mainstream health promotion literature – and what nursing should be striving to reflect in its health promotion activity. What Irvine (2005) is really referring to in her article is the notion of health education competencies as they relate to district nursing practice –not health promotion. There are different levels of health education practice and, admittedly, some of those highlighted in Irvine's article do refer to less limiting health education techniques – namely those that acknowledge the contribution of individual empowerment, community presence and political awareness – what I would refer to as the ‘education’ component of health education practice (Whitehead 2004, Whitehead & Russell 2004). There is, however, a huge gap between community presence and ‘community empowerment’ and the same is true for the difference between political awareness and being ‘politically active’– both, which are a mainstay of current health promotion activity. Irvine's study mainly identifies the district nursing competencies of disease process, ill health, opportunism, lifestyle and behaviour-change, psychomotor, cognitive and affective activity and epidemiology – which are very much entrenched within conventional and traditional approaches to health education. Irvine has demonstrated just how easy it is for nursing to fall into the trap of contextually confusing our practices and failing to move forward from current locations. Downie et al. (1996, p. 12) have described this phenomenon stating that: In effect, health promotion has become a dazzling bandwagon, gaining momentum and with all and sundry clamouring to climb aboard, without giving sufficient thought to what it is and where it is going. Irvine (2005, p. 973) goes on to state that her study outcomes may result in: a subsequent appreciation of the relevant competencies that will enable DNs (district nurses) to engage in health promotion in its broadest sense, from the traditional through to the new paradigm position. As stated previously though, this should be more correctly interpreted as ‘from the traditional through to the mid-range position’. Health promotion, in its broadest sense, is not represented in Irvine's study. Such situations have created an uneasy tension between health education and health promotion practice in nursing and raised questions about the ability of nurses to move from a health education ethos towards a broader health promotion paradigm (Morgan & Marsh 1998, Norton 1998, Piper & Brown 1998, Whitehead 2001, 2004). Falk Rafael (1999) suggests that such tension has resulted in a situation where nurses are actively excluded from health promotion work by other health professional groups, are devalued as an ancillary medical service and are consequently ‘invisible’ in the world of health promotion. I wonder to what extent district nurses, if they were to adopt the competencies recommended by Irvine, would change this situation. If nursing wishes to become ‘visible’ amongst the health promotion community it needs to ensure that the current context for health promotion practice is acknowledged and measured – and appropriate competencies and programmes put forward for the task at hand." @default.
• W1997452175 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1997452175 creator A5025504744 @default.
• W1997452175 date "2006-04-03" @default.
• W1997452175 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W1997452175 title "Commentary on Irvine F (2005) Exploring district nursing competencies in health promotion: the use of the Delphi technique.<i>Journal of Clinical Nursing</i>14, 965-975" @default.
• W1997452175 cites W155098574 @default.
• W1997452175 cites W1964323552 @default.
• W1997452175 cites W1995834829 @default.
• W1997452175 cites W2020381226 @default.
• W1997452175 cites W2023923163 @default.
• W1997452175 cites W2034665354 @default.
• W1997452175 cites W2038302773 @default.
• W1997452175 cites W2090870787 @default.
• W1997452175 cites W2114992492 @default.
• W1997452175 cites W2123268420 @default.
• W1997452175 cites W2142754682 @default.
• W1997452175 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01321.x" @default.
• W1997452175 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16629976" @default.
• W1997452175 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W1997452175 type Work @default.
• W1997452175 sameAs 1997452175 @default.
• W1997452175 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W1997452175 countsByYear W19974521752012 @default.
• W1997452175 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1997452175 hasAuthorship W1997452175A5025504744 @default.
• W1997452175 hasConcept C138816342 @default.
• W1997452175 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
• W1997452175 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W1997452175 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1997452175 hasConcept C185618831 @default.
• W1997452175 hasConcept C198231283 @default.
• W1997452175 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W1997452175 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W1997452175 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1997452175 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W1997452175 hasConceptScore W1997452175C138816342 @default.
• W1997452175 hasConceptScore W1997452175C159110408 @default.
• W1997452175 hasConceptScore W1997452175C166957645 @default.
• W1997452175 hasConceptScore W1997452175C17744445 @default.
• W1997452175 hasConceptScore W1997452175C185618831 @default.
• W1997452175 hasConceptScore W1997452175C198231283 @default.
• W1997452175 hasConceptScore W1997452175C2779343474 @default.
• W1997452175 hasConceptScore W1997452175C39549134 @default.
• W1997452175 hasConceptScore W1997452175C71924100 @default.
• W1997452175 hasConceptScore W1997452175C95457728 @default.
• W1997452175 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W1997452175 hasLocation W19974521751 @default.
• W1997452175 hasLocation W19974521752 @default.
• W1997452175 hasOpenAccess W1997452175 @default.
• W1997452175 hasPrimaryLocation W19974521751 @default.
• W1997452175 hasRelatedWork W128846100 @default.
• W1997452175 hasRelatedWork W1978039259 @default.
• W1997452175 hasRelatedWork W2040847673 @default.
• W1997452175 hasRelatedWork W2070298998 @default.
• W1997452175 hasRelatedWork W2086747491 @default.
• W1997452175 hasRelatedWork W2403347988 @default.
• W1997452175 hasRelatedWork W3094948412 @default.
• W1997452175 hasRelatedWork W3110900155 @default.
• W1997452175 hasRelatedWork W4245456823 @default.
• W1997452175 hasRelatedWork W90433005 @default.
• W1997452175 hasVolume "15" @default.
• W1997452175 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1997452175 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1997452175 magId "1997452175" @default.
• W1997452175 workType "article" @default.