Then there are the political / economic causes such as agricultural subsidies that make high fructose corn syrup an ingredient of choice or a increasing disparate income distribution that tracks closely with health. And when it comes to information technology and patient directed health research, the allowance of direct-to-patient advertising in health care poses huge risks – probably why everybody else except New Zealand doesn’t allow it.

Not that health 2.0 can’t achieve valuable things, but I personally am skeptical of seeing any big shifts. I am also concerned that an increase in perceieved patient responsibility for healthcare management can easily transition into a blame-the-patient for their condition, and blind people to the structural factors that are leading to this state.

With that said, though, Darthmed’s comment is very narrow in that it assumes “fancy IT” is a means to an end. It’s not. Health IT, Health 2.0, and the data behind them, are merely tools that can be leveraged to enhance campaigns that aim to change behavior.

Never before have public health practitioners been able to reach audiences at such a targeted level or been able to interact with individuals and mobilize them at the grassroots. Yes, some “low-tech, unsexy approaches” still work, but are we going to ignore the emerging tools and data that help us reach people with those approaches?

I’m a strong believer in constructive criticism — it’s a good thing :) — but in this case I believe it’s born out of a lack of understanding and unwillingness to think beyond the “unsexy” box

Susannah, your research and reports are invaluable and have been extremely helpful in my work :) Keep it up!

Is Geography Your Health Destiny?
By Risa Lavizzo-Mourney, MD
http://www.thehealthcareblog.com/the_health_care_blog/2010/02/is-geography-your-health-destiny-.html

It was great meeting you at BIBA. I read your blog post and recognize questions that health campaigns and interventions have tackled since the dawn of public health.

Behavioural change theories explain the challenges people face when they choose to change their behavior. Models also exist to predict a person’s likelihood to change behavior. And they all have a central theme: knowledge does not equal behavior. For an intervention or campaign to be successful it must address layers of attitudes, beliefs, motivational and environmental factors.

Whether it’s dropping a bad behavior or picking up a new one, most people cognitively understand why they have to change their behavior. The tricky part is the how. Many people attempt to change behavior and are discouraged when they run into barriers. Worse even, they may only have control over some of those barriers.

Take for example the chronic patient who opts for the fast-food meal. Let’s brainstorm the factors that influenced his choice. He knows he shouldn’t, but does he have viable options? Are there tasty, convenient, satisfying and affordable salad places in his neighborhood? Does he believe that a salad will make a difference after so many years of fast-food? Does he believe he has the power to make a difference in his health conditions? Or does he believe that medications alone will help his health? Are his health issues overwhelming him to a point he’s given up? Questions like these address a sliver of the factors that influence choices that may hinder behavior change.

Is making accessible and reliable health information available worth it? Definitely. For the self-starters out there, Health 2.0 is a valuable tool towards a healthy lifestyle. For the rest, we can hope that simple and broadly available health information will support and promote a cultural shift.

So once again, thank you for your contribution to the field. Health campaigns need Health 2.0!

Very respectfully,

Sandra L. Paredes