It is Official- My systems thinking/policy book has a release date of Nov 2014- Pre-order print or ebook @ Amazon and Springer website http://lnkd.in/bun2Dvs. @mbattlefisher- Just in time for holiday giving or course book selection!
Let us give Chris Christie’s latest exploits a rest today. I was in a zombie mood today and decided to revisit a CDC zombie initiative from 2011. In the less comedic galaxy of public health, the world also needs saving from premature mortality and morbidity. The rightfully respected CDC made a venture into the “zombie apocalypse”, educating the public about emergency preparedness with a zombie novella. Unfortunately disaster planning leaves much in the public with obvious missteps in policy formulation and execution. Maggie Silver, a contributor to the CDC Public Health Matters blog, had even taken to giving the play by play on how to stay alive based on lessons learned (or not learned so well) based on the popular zombie feast, The Walking Dead (http://blogs.cdc.gov/publichealthmatters/2012/02/thewalkingdead/). It is an ingenious leverage of marketing hard to reach populations with health information in light of increasing occurrence of natural disasters (http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/zombies_novella.htm). It has been reported by the Washington Post that Twitter followers increased ten-fold for the unsexy CDC’s Emergency Preparedness division shortly after Silver’s blog went live (Bell, 2011).
The line between influential and conceptual health policy is hazy. On one hand, the CDC policy behind green lighting such novel communication channels may have come from the need to increase knowledge of emergency preparedness (conceptual) in the light of recent natural disasters. But the CDC is also in the business of saving lives. In preparation for all hazards, many deaths and injuries can be averted by knowing what to do before the “zombie apocalypse”, the CDC’s allegory for natural disasters. The blogosphere was chockfull of pundits decrying with the use of the federal money to educate the living on not becoming undead. Dear pundits, zombies are not real. Such a falsehood was not disseminated by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The CDC, as the trusted source, would eliminate the chance of a phishing hoax. Zombies did not spark alert on the Public Broadcast System. I did not hear any upheaval as in ,vis a vis, Orson Welles. Branscum & Sharma (2009) reviewed the use of comics in health promotions targeted at children. More often, the comics are not a standalone intervention (Branscum & Sharma, 2009). But from an ethical standpoint, could the realness of the campaign blur the lines between entertainment to inform versus realistic entertainment that “warns”. But let us get this straight. The undead’s purpose in life (generously defined as so) is to make more undead in order to have more slowly shuffling company of the Cesar Romero variety. I have yet to have met a nonliving zombie in my traverses about town. Art can and has been an effective vehicle to slyly introduce health information but care must be taken in assuring that there is no confusion in the public as to its purpose.
The CDC is working behind the scenes with evidence based public health interventions and is not trying to take over the pedestal of DC Comics. The jury is still out as to the effectiveness of the zombie campaign. In the area of viral impact, The Washington Post reported that social media interest in the zombies crashed the CDC website (Bell, 2011). I argue that this venture into comics (while perhaps not a novella about zombies in every case) has some lessons for the health policy set to see what the other side (promotion) is doing. Should there be a policy set that deals with entertainment for social change (See the work on edu-tainment from Arvind Singhal of UTEP)?
Branscum, Paul; Sharma, Manoj. COMIC BOOKS AN UNTAPPED MEDIUM FOR HEALTH PROMOTION.Source: American Journal of Health Studies . 2009, Vol. 24 Issue 4, p430-439. 10p.
Bell, Melissa. 5/20/11.Zombie apocalypse a coup for CDC emergency team.
CDC Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response.(http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/zombies_novella.htm)
Silver, Maggie. (February 7, 2012). Teachable Moments – Courtesy of The Walking Dead on AMC. Public Health Matters Blog. Retrieved on 12-6-13 from
Some selected work from Dr. Arvind Singhal:
Communication of Innovations (2006)
Organizing for Social Change (2006)
Entertainment-Education Worldwide: History, Research, and Practice (2004)
Entertainment-Education: A Communication Strategy for Social Change (1999)
This was originally published in The Yale Journal for Humanities in Medicine. The reference is at the end…
Taking a Dramatic Eye to the Doctor’s Office Interaction
by Michele Battle-Fisher (reprinted with permission)
…I began to realize that although medical labels had the same shiny surface as my childhood labels, with a luster capable of illuminating the darkness of disease, they also had the same sticky underside. (1)
Physicians by nature realize the humanity in healing. However, physicians do not leave “self” at the door. Not completely blind to social status distinction, this magnified distance in the doctor’s office may be overcome through discourse and a shared appreciation of worth. A very tall order… This sounds far too easy to do. Physicians are asked in each visit of a face-to-face interaction with a patient to optimize the success of each visit under a number of constraints. HMO’s demand this. Patients expect this. Recognizing the immense opportunity each interaction may hold in the health of the patient, the importance of maximizing each communicative discourse becomes more important. Certainly this thesis cries for the existence of a medical home and a history of a continued relationship between patient and doctor. It is hoped that this would not merely be a one-night only performance. If a doctor and patient are so fortunate to have this continuity of care (or less satisfactorily a one-shot visit), using Erving Goffman’s thesis of the person as a drama player with a splash of Butler’s performativity can be applied in ensuring better success in clinical discourse.
Goffman presents “dramaturgy” in human interaction as a theatrical event, with scenes, roles and players (2). There is no understudy for the physician. The doctor knows his or her role. This meeting of doctor and patient is inherently social. Socialization in this case, according to Dramaturgy, is a form of ritualized theatrics (3). Once the patient dons a hospital gown awaiting the physician, he is in the role of patient. This means that a patient may play a character of “patient” with more ease than having her true self scrutinized. The true self is flawed for many, being imperfect and open to ridicule. When discerning of meaning for other’s judgment when other appropriate evidence is unavailable, the doctor must use “signs” given by the patient (4). A silent patient leads to an evaluation of a mute actor by the physician based on the “performance” given. Personalities notwithstanding, the patient actors may be evaluated on the basis of phenotype: be it race, creed, or intelligence (5; 6). Goffman would say that following the dramatic performance of the doctor-patient interaction gives emotional grounding to these social interactions (7). It is emotive. But is it realistic to expect the patient to purge his or her soul and construct a shared morality in this environment?
Goffman reinforces the prejudice permeating in the 1950’s (that still remains) that held shamed characters in comparison to the gold-standard of the normal and nondeviant (8). Goffman made quite clear his demarcation of normal and deviant; through his use of “we normals” throughout the Stigma piece, he casts himself as “normal” (9). The patient only seeks a return to a quality of normalcy. They ask to be fixed. They ask for their old well “selves”. And that operationalization of normal may not coalesce with the physician’s recommendations. It may be wholly unrealistic clinically. Stigma is correlated to self-hood, as society has created stigma to cope with the dissonance- causing gaps in knowledge of others (10; 11; 12; 13). Serving the purpose of validating or invalidating self-worth, the symbolism of language allows us to create a reality from the outside inward. However, individuals may save face by silence or speak mistruths during the medical visit, whereby projecting what is expected from the patient “audience” (14). Stigma works self-reflexively, necessitating a social construction of a private and public self (15).
Case in point, can a patient not be aware of this stigmatization? Raj (16) powerful describes the use of medical labeling by practitioners. Raj (17) presents the case of becoming the diagnosis. To heal and make healthy a patient equates with a similar move to “normalcy”. The presence of disease is not. Physicians are asked to arbitrate what is arrantly wrong with the health of the patient. If only a less severe physical deterrent or public outings (or none at all) of illness were enough for society to avoid stigmatizing. As a label of diagnosis, HIV and Hepatitis then become unwanted albatrosses in the public sphere (18;19; 20).
Goffman certainly believed in a moral right in performing a role in society, explicitly calling for obligation and respect as an actor/performer (21). Whether a moral right or not, must each of us fill the role of “patient”? The body deteriorates making this a nearly absolute possibility. In doing so, each patient and doctor become team members by making manageable impressions and upholding the actors’ covenantal rules of engagement of that particular illness. The acting appearance reflects a perceived status and this will be linked to the quality of the patient and doctor’s performances (22). Judith Butler (23) asserts that performativity deconstructs power and social relationships. How the patient chooses to navigate the discourse may then call for the use of performativity. But I would argue that the medical visit would only allow for a conception of meaning within that staged performance.
A diagnosis innately defines a self as an “other”, someone different from the healthful and productive. The diagnosis does not automatically remove the personal consequences wrought on the patient. Goffman has realized that acting runs the development of social interaction, where the dramatic depiction can ring true or be falsified. Following the dramatic turn with transcendence, as theorized by Goffman, would salvage Jane or the patient when no other solution could be found. When Jane Eyre wrote, “reader, I married him (Rochester)”, she culminated her drama. Will a patient be able to say he divorced AIDS? No, it remains a chronic reality.
Medicine is a profession that is shrouded in a mystique that can make a patient-doctor relationship more complicated to navigate. That is a heavy burden to shoulder. I understand that there are many signs given by patients. Could that person without perceived blemish fully adhere to the medical expectations required of both sides in this possibly stigmatic dyad? I wonder if Percy Blythe Shelley was at all knowledgeable of his stigma as a philanderer. I would surmise not; he simply “was” Percy. Society gave his actions a label. Shelley gained far too much prominence from his love poetry for this to be of consequent. Society’s acceptance of his work, mine included, reinforced his sense of self. Shame was trumped by society’s notions of importance of this literary gift.
I ask what gift is left to the patient in this call of full disclosure. At times the gift of healing is left unopened. Certainly, this disclosure is with absolute purpose of healing. Again, I ask, what comfort is gained in complete personal nakedness when the other part (doctor) does not reciprocate this favor? In order to maintain ethical care, the focus, but shared culpability, should fall on the fellow actor, the patient. Do we reward our patients’ performances? I stress the heightened responsibility of the physician to heed this inequality of circumstance and remain mindful of the supporting cast’s “process”. This process may in turn reaffirm the humanity of the medical care being offered. But isn’t that the point?
(1) Raj, Y. (November 2005). Lessons from a label maker. Annuals of internal medicine, 143 (9), 687.
(2) Goffman, E. (1973). The presentation of self in everyday life. Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press.
(3) Goffman, E. (1973), previously cited.
(4) Tunc, T. (2008). Female urinary incontinence and the construction of nineteenth-century stigmatized womanhood. Urology, 71, 767-770.
(5) Shapiro, J. (2002). Self and other through the prism of AIDS: a literary examination of relationships with patients. Microbes and Infection, 4, 111-117.
(6) Goffman, E. (1973), previously cited.
(7) Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of a Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
(8) Goffman, E. (1963), previously cited.
(9) Goffman, E. (1963), previously cited.
(10) Goffman, E. (1973), previously cited.
(11) Rintamaki, L., Scott, A., Kosenko, K., & Jensen, R. (2007). Male patient perceptions of HIV stigma in health care contexts. AIDS Patient Care and STD’s. 21(12), 956-969.
(12) Shapiro, J. (2002), previously cited.
(13) Goffman, E. (1973), previously cited.
(14) Goffman, E. (1963), previously cited.
(15) Raj, Y.(2005), previously cited.
(16) Raj, Y. (2005), previously cited.
(17) Shapiro, J. (2002), previously cited.
(18) Klitzman, R. & Greenberg, J. (2002). Patterns of Communication between gay and lesbian patients and their health care providers. Journal of Homosexuality, 42(4), 65-75.
(19) Schafer, A., Scheurlen, M., Felten, M., & Kraus, M. (December 2005). Physician-patient relationship and disclosure behavior in chronic hepatitis C in a group of German outpatients. European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 17(12), 1387-1394.
(20) Goffman, E. (1973), previously cited.
(21) Goffman, E. (1973), previously cited.
(22) Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble: feminism and subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
(23) Shapiro, J. (2002), previously cited.
Battle-Fisher, M.(Feb. 8, 2009). Taking a literary eye to the doctor’s office interaction. [Electronic version]. The Yale Journal for Humanities in Medicine. Retrieved from http://yjhm.yale.edu/essays/mbattle-fisher20090208.htm.
by Karina Descartin
In the late 1990s, the summer before my senior year as an undergraduate in public health in the Philippines, I volunteered and participated in a summer immersion program through the university’s Volunteer Service Corps. Our group of eight medical and nursing students lived for almost five weeks with indigenous tribe families in the mountains of Bukidnon on the big island of Mindanao, south of Manila. Our task was to design and implement health programs for the small villages we visited. That summer was an entirely different life for us, city kids all. The homes we visited were far (sometimes whole mountains) apart. Walking for hours from point A to B was the norm. Electricity was rare and the physical and healthcare infrastructure was primitive, mostly inadequate to handle the communities’ needs. Extended family groups typically lived together in small clusters of modest homes, which left little room for privacy but reinforced the supportive and closely knit kinship networks that were part of the fabric of life. Local folks looked you in the eye unhurried, offered their best crops when sharing their meals, and embraced us with a warmth that shone through initial shyness. They laughed easily and their smiles lingered. Even during nights when they shared stories of sorrows and fear, I had a feeling they knew they’d be okay. Afterwards, when I returned for my final year at the university, the world looked different. I’d seen first-hand that even in a context of tremendous lack of external resources — and the near absence of the health support systems that I’d been learning about in my classes — the always-present embrace of a whole community built around the connectedness and sharing of family and friends could boost well-being from the inside-out.
When I started to look at the connection between built environment and health, I found Dr. Richard Jackson’s (2012) book Designing Healthy Communities. As a physician and Master of Public Health student, I immediately connected with the words.
Jackson (2012) wrote that in the context of love and charity as residents of our will, the built environment is a manifestation of our intention and imagination. Further, in the context of genuine giving, he added that we get more than we give from truly “great built environments” (Jackson & Sinclair, 2012). But that great built environment bunkers us away from the din of social activity, what good is a custom home without a community to share it? Sometimes people can move mountains but they cannot move concrete walls without a building permit.
So when Atlanta’s Mayor Kasim Reed said in his TED City 2.0 Talk that “cities are where hope meets the street,” I agree. But I have to add that, often times, hope meets mountain paths and dusty village roads far from the city. Hope does not care whether we settle in on rolling hills or urban sprawl. Perhaps then, we should ask, where does this hope come from? Perhaps it’s not from the city street or rural lane, in particular, but wherever we are. It is our social connectiveness.
We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts, we make our world.
Christopher Young, Buddha Quotes, 2012
The directed purpose of the built environment depends on our intent. A long time ago, older cottages on tree lined streets had porches. Remember when people actually congregated on that porch to talk and yell at friends as they passed by. What are we trying to accomplish with strained decks in the back of our homes? Is our current goal to build and connect? Or is it to fortify and defend and isolate (Caldeira, 1996)? Isolation over the long term has been found to be detrimental to health. But when the heart is taken out of meeting friends by chance or making sure that a neighbor is okay today, we have another disease altogether. We have to work harder in establishing co-presence in our networks to actually stare another person in the eyeballs (Kadushin, 2012). What is co-presence in networks, you say? Sometimes people just share the same space and nothing more bonds them. That is known in networks as co-location. But if we hope to assure that built environment will not impede our ability to connect, co-presence is in order. If there is a neighborhood yard sale to unload unused Stairmasters and bound books, this is space with a social purpose for neighbors and bargain shoppers on the prowl, no matter how fleeting the communion may be.
Process and System
Community is ingrained for some (co-presence). For others, they live only in a zip code (co-location).
- Michele Battle-Fisher- Urban Greenspace
Cities of walls do not strengthen citizenship but rather contribute to its corrosion.
– Teresa P. R. Caldeira, Fortified Enclaves
We need open, inclusive exchange of ideas that will breathe fresh new life into this city. We need this. And when and if we get it, then the walls will come tumbling down.
– Dennis Dalton, TED City 2.0
Rydin et al. (2012), Lopez (2012), Rao et al. (2007), Kochitzky et al. (2006), and urban planner Gregor Wiltchko suggest that urban planning must be multidisciplinary and collaborative. This is key in ensuring that a common language is spoken among various disciplines and interests involved in defining our environments. Who has actually attended an urban planning public forum? I hear …silence. Wiltschko further puts this position in perspective— “not so much to design the site or the right area but designing the right process that collaboration can really happen.” Do you agree?
If we want to build something that best fits competing needs and makes more people just a little bit happier — perhaps allowing that frustrated driver above to get home in reasonable time even while the slow-pedaling cyclist in the next lane gets to enjoy the scenery. It takes more than a clever plan or smart siting by some architect, planner or engineer. This is parallel to Battle-Fisher (2013), Jackson & Sinclair (2012), and Caldeira’s (1996) explicit language of community, openness, freedom, belonging, and possibilities for people.
Cities, built by humans are complex systems (Rydin et al., 2012). In complex systems, health begets health (Battle-Fisher, 2013, April 5). In complex systems, we not only learn collaboration and participation, but we learn balance that is always under the threat of imbalance (Jackson & Sinclair, 2012; Carlson et al., 2012; Jackson, 2003; Mitchell, 2009; Miller & Page, 2007; Lidwell, Holden, & Butler, 2010; Luke & Stamatakis, 2012).
I wandered the streets in my vicinity to capture some of the many ways that intentions and process have manifested in the built environment of this city. Come walk with me to see for yourself…
The Cannery along Third Street, left, is a former factory repurposed as residential lofts and commercial storefronts in Downtown Dayton. The building on the right, roughly from the same period, is still an active (if underutilized) industrial facility.
The vacant Lindsey Building along Main Street. The building is boarded up with lively artwork that keeps the façade vibrant.
As humans, we create — we build. We may build structures — soaring art or hulking defense. As humans, we are responsive to our internal as well as our external environments. As humans, we have the propensity to connect, to share, to exchange, to receive, to give, to develop, to innovate, to thrive… or to wilt away.
Battle-Fisher, M. (2013). Urban Greenspace and Collective Health Ownership. Mindful Nature, 6(3), 33-35.
Battle-Fisher, M. (2013, April 5). The participant observer and engagement in the routine [Web Log Post]. Retrieved from http://orgcomplexity.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/the-participant-observer-and-engagement-in-the-routine/
Caldeira, T. P. R. (1996). Fortified Enclaves: The New Urban Segregation. Public Culture, 8, 303-328.
Carlson, C., Semra, A., Gardner, K., & Rogers, S. (2012). Complexity in Built Environment, Health,and Destination Walking: A Neighborhood-Scale Analysis. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 89(2), 270-284.
Dalton, D. (2013, September 20). Session 2: Reinventing Urban Experience. [TED City 2.0] Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/pages/attend_tedcity2
Jackson, R. J. & Sinclair, S. (2012). Designing healthy communities. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Jackson, R. J. (2003). The Impact of the Built Environment on Health: An Emerging Field. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1382-1384.
Kadushin, C. (2012). Understanding Social Networks. New York: Oxford.
Kochtitzky, C., Frumkin, H., Rodriguez, R., Dannenberg, A., Rayman, J., Rose, K.,…Kanter, T. (2006). Urban planning and public health at CDC.MMWR: Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 55(2), 34-8.
Lidwell, W., Hodlen, K. & Butler, J. (2010). Feedback Loop. In Universal Principles of Design (2nd edition). Beverly, MA: Rockport Publishers.
Luke, D. & Stamatakis, K. (2012). Systems Science Methods in Public Health: Dynamics, Networks, and Agents. Annual Reviews of Public Health, 33, 357-376.
Miller, J., & Page, S. (2007). Complexity in Social Worlds. In Complex Adaptive Systems. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mitchell, M. (2009). What is Complexity? In Complexity: A Guided Tour. New York: Oxford.
Reed, K. (2013, September 20). Session 1: Redefining Citizen. [TED City 2.0] Retrieved fromhttp://www.ted.com/pages/attend_tedcity2
Rydin, Y., Bleahu, A., Davis, M., Davila, J., Friel, S., De Grandis, G.,… Wilson, J. (2012). Shaping cities for health: complexity and the planning of urban environments in the 21st century. Lancet, 379(9831), 2079-2108. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60435-8.
Wiltschko, G. (2013, September 20). Making Urban Planning Urban. [TEDxVienna]. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-0p8ZpBq04
Young, C. (2012). Buddha Quotes – 365 Days of Inspirational Quotes and Sayings in Buddhism [Kindle Edition]. USA: Amazon Digital.
All photos copyright ©2013 Karina S. Descartin.
Here is a quick discussion of how insurance should work under Obamacare-
· The young peoples’ premiums which should theoretically have the lower probability of catastrophic illness should offset the increased utilization of healthcare by the graying Baby Boomers.
· More money from 20 year old, less office visits should offsets visits of Grandmother who will have higher premiums but also more health care utilization.
· Voila! A healthful societal success!
Take this paradox for a spin—
Got some job history, young one? Believe me, it is not enough quite yet to offset the need to get covered now during the start of your economic productivity. For those young people from the most disenfranchised families with a history of lack of insurance and unstable work histories, the decisions revolved around accepting the Medicaid expansion along party lines leaves many kids in a lurch.
Medicaid expansion is concentric to Obamacare. Take the arduous tabulation of “reported” enrollments in the state-based health exchanges shouldered by the Advisory Board Company (ABC). Two weeks after the roll out, the Advisory Board Company (2013) reported that 130,000 people have applied for coverage through the health exchanges across 15 states that offered up the goods (the data).
The proof some say is in the pudding but this pudding is more of a murky gruel. Having applied for coverage does not mean covered right now. Many applications in some states default to being Medicaid eligible, not exchanges in the traditional sense. Some states continue to poo-poo on Medicaid expansion, though my home state of Ohio got on board. As ABC pointed out, nobody has paid a premium let alone a penalty yet. The applicants have only expressed intent to become covered. What happens when a young person decides not paying that exchange premium and take the penalty ruler to the knuckles versus not defaulting on that student loan that cannot remain in deferment?
The invincibles are once again invisible to Obamacare’s safety net. How are we set to navigate them back once the media spin of ACA’s hiccups and the economic downturn takes hold in getting covered? I say that we must account for perceptions of DC Comics-flavored invincibility, modernization of youth culture, social marketing with a dash of brain function for good measure.
Invincibility may couple with increased risk taking within this young cohort. Rice (1996) defined youth culture as “the sum of the ways of living of adolescents; it refers to the body of norms, values, and practices recognized and shared by members of the adolescent society as appropriate guides to action”. It must be said that youth culture is a relatively new phenomenon. Do we forget that children were given adult responsibilities such as child labor that gave them no ability to “find themselves”? Inadequate neurotransmitter levels may lead to impulsivity. That darn frontal lobe has not been kissed with the ability to have a reliable gut instinct (defined as following the adult world rules). Lastly, youth are less able to make connections between experience and memory.
Now if that memory does not trigger an “a-ha, maybe that hit of salvia is not a good idea this time”, what are we left with?
We must account for this youth reality as it is now. The child worker of yesteryear was forced to take an economically derived “adult “identity covered in soot all the while his brain remained woefully underdeveloped. Youth today have been protected from unfair child labor and celebrated autonomy (within reason) so the youth can relish in a period of an English Rumspringa that bleeds into their 30’s. They have a more fair life course. With that newly allowed time of this new life, young people have time to build social networks of friends. This is not a big surprise to parents who have tried to evoke “if your friends jumped off a bridge”. If the social network of friends using their influence to make a belief or action contagious, young people have an affinity to being a part of the in-group. Let’s all bungee over the Colorado together.
One, two, three, hell yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
It is that social influence within networks that works to get people to adopt health behaviors. That is if we frame the intervention to account for these conforming networks (Smith & Christakis, 2008). Yes, they can make up their own minds to take the coverage or the penalty. Will that take that insured baptism in the end? Young people (18-35) still have high rates of risk factors that would really require health care intervention (such as smoking, drinking, serious mental health impairments). It is amazing how the body accumulates the follies and unfortunates of youth in its cells. Unless something is catastrophic (which is in itself not a guarantee that care will be sought), the body does not tell its unfortunate tale for many years to come.
The roll out has done little to entice with its social media machine to make and counter this invincibility point. While the jury is still out, there is a possible untapped potential of using larger- scale social media campaigns to support behavior change (Centola, 2013).The Obama administration fills my inbox until my box “runneth over”. Now is the time to leverage social media to engage health behaviors such as signing up for Obamacare with an empirically sound research design. Maybe these social marketing messages could outshine the latest meme of cats with witty words just long enough to support that conscious jump over to the health exchange website. And the Advisory Board Company will keep the ticker of those jumps.
Centola, D. (2013) Social Media and the Science of Health Behavior. Circulation. 127: 2135-2144.
Diamond, D. (October 16, 2013). More than 130,000 people have applied for coverage through ACA exchanges. Retrieved on October 16, 2013 from The Advisory Board Company Daily Briefing Blog at http://www.advisory.com/Daily-Briefing/Blog/2013/10/More-than-130000-people-have-applied-for-Obamacare.
Rice, F. (1996). The adolescent: Development, relationships and culture (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Smith, K. & Christakis, N. (2008). Social Networks and Health. Annual Review of Sociology. 34: 409-29.
It is 12:01am EST on October 1, 2013. This is a day of mourning. The government is indefinitely out to lunch. It is time to acknowledge the “Cliff hanger” risks. As I am writing this, the hatchet has gone down. Please start the funeral dirge.
Obamacare is in danger once again. More families will struggle from government stoppages. Obamacare has more lives than a cat. Defunding Obamacare and delaying private health insurance exchanges are risks that we should not take only later see the error of our ways. But there is an undisclosed system on the Congressional game show of who can “come on down”. Throwing money at a creepy Uncle Sam that did not pass his medical boards should not silence the throngs of citizens calling for the moral imperative to protect the nation’s health.
On The Price is Right, there are contestants in T shirts embossed with phrases such as “I spayed Muffin for Betty White” vying for hot tub and dinette sets. The show is based on the fascination of the possibility of success, not its realization of success. Each guess in the Cliff Hanger game has a one-dimensional yodeler in front of cardboard Alps moving precariously towards the cliff and his impending doom.
But what is unique to The Price is Right is that the contestant often calls upon the help of the audience for help. But he does not have to listen. Each studio audience member at the Price Is Right works their uvulas in a frenzy to be picked and give contestants’ help. Please listen to me then you can decide what you will do! That goes for you too, Congress.
According to a 2013 survey performed by Rassumen Reports, only 8% of those surveyed reported that his legislator “listened to him most”. In 2013, Rebekah Herrick wrote in a timely article published in State Politics and Policy Quarterly that often agreement between constituents’ desires and the legislator’s outcomes is defined as the pinnacle of policy success. Absolute agreement among constituents will never happen in the purest sense. However, Herrick said that legislators must constantly reassess the opinions of their publics to inform their legislative decisions. Listen before the guy in Lederhosen or that latest Obamacare initiative goes over the cliff.
There is that adage, “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. Leaving millions of Americans uninsured and sick is a past warranting an encore? In this healthcare debate, we have to do more than just remember the decisions affecting public health problems and the health victories (which do certainly exist).But a holding pattern based on political ideology does not progress make.
Fixing a healthcare “system” requires more than a falsely disjointed approach to its separate elements. Sure, the healthcare decisions are far more complicated than arriving at a price of that Belgian waffle maker. We cannot afford to fall miserably off the “cliff”. We have been doing too much of that lately. The ideological rigidness and that pouting in the corner until your face is blue are not working. We have more than a hot tub at stake.
NOTE: This is a Reworking of “Making sense of healthcare systems using sensemaking and the Price is Right” (Orgcomplexity Blog August 30, 2013).
Occasionally my mind wanders toward random things that are little distraction during my long daily commute. I listen to talk radio when I do not muse over the alpacas that I just passed. I heard leading bioethicist Dr. Art Caplan, presently on faculty at New York University, on NPR recently discussing a myriad of reasons why a patient may never become a candidate on the National Waiting List for a solid organ. End Stage Renal Disease is a public health crisis that is often unnoticed at the sake of more media- sexy comorbidities such as diabetes and high blood pressure. What is distressing is that there is a social vagueness that may occur in the allocation of the organs. We should certainly want the best return on the investment of that organ- a patient that will take care of it and not reject it. But how medicine may come to this conclusion of worth is not standardized.
When medical worthiness of an organ is decided arbitrarily, there is a problem. Even the slightest improvement in mortality rate for those awaiting organs is like well-positioned strides of a marathon runner. We have a long way to go. The path to an organ is arduous yet hopeful at the same time. The accomplishment of finishing the marathon is a welcomed event. The sweaty finish of a marathon runner is met in applause. The race that ends with a transplant signifies more time with your loved one but more weary marathons of ceaseless post-transplant care on the horizon. There are too few of those transplant celebrations for End Stage Renal patients.
There are good, even stellar dialysis centers who serve renal patients with the best clinical and emotional care possible. The dedication of the renal medical community is one to emulate. But dialysis is not a solution. It is a holding pattern until the receipt of that elusive kidney. While the intentions may be the right place, “worth” in receiving organs leaves far too many dialysis patients with a bum deal. Transplant centers, according to Caplan, can make a list of demands to make a patient worthy of organs. Many make perfect evidence- based sense and are backed by medical experts and policy makers. Some may even make financial sense. But does the inherent inconsistency of qualifications to the wait list make moral sense? People are dying at an average rate of 18 per day. Far too many fathers, mothers, friends, and foes are perishing.
How can a society be held to such a high moral standard? The statistics are working against us. The renal community is in for the long haul. However, with far too much frequency, tough decisions of life and death are made under duress and under the casing of outstripped demand.
NOTE: The Art Caplan transcript from the September 4, 2013 interview may be found at http://m.npr.org/news/Health/218811165?start=10. This is a reworking of “From cop cars and stalactites to kidneys and transplantation: thinking deeply” (Orgcomplexity Blog, 9-5-13)
Rework of “Paternalism- what a tangled web” post, August 6, 2013
Published in 1859, John Stuart Mill wrote On Liberty. The basic premise of this work made the position that the essence of man is to defend the individual rights to think and act for him or herself without unwarranted intervention. I am not here to bore with the specifics of Mill but that book is well worn and highlighted on my bookshelf. There are a host of reasons why public health should assume the position of grand overseer over the public’s health. But before public health acts upon that privilege, it is paramount to acknowledge that the fear of paternalism is a palpable reaction to loss. But do we not fear loss in public health as well? We hold strong disdain for the loss of health expressed as worsening health outcomes. Public health works feverishly to cultivate and maintain the continual buy-in of the very people that we seek to protect. We all fear loss however divergent they appear on the surface. To the anti-public health set, they fear losing “me” to some “you” out there. For public health, “we” fear losing “you all” to premature disease and health disparity.
What is made quite evident is the warring of the ideals of maintaining personal liberty with the maximization of social rewards. Someone has to give up liberty so others can gain. But who wants to be the loser? If the argument remains as a question of personal liberty, yes, someone will shoot craps. It will sting but there is a salve for that. It is getting over the immediacy of the personal loss of liberty that stings the most. People live by the concreteness of their own experiences. Unfortunately, this is often to the disadvantage of public health to get buy-in of impact that we seek. But it is perhaps the imperfection of human experience that makes the work of public health the noblest profession of all. It is just so darn hard for people to “lose” while “gaining”.
A special issue of the The Journals of Gerontology: Social Sciences has a call for papers dedicated to the topic of social networks and aging and later life. The deadline for submission is November 1.
We are interested in research that pushes network-oriented research on age and the life course in new directions. But if you address social networks and include factors like age or later-life transitions (e.g., retirement, bereavement, health decline) in your work, you should think about submitting.
For more information about submitting papers, see: http://www.geron.org/Publications/The%20Journal%20of%20Gerontology:%20Social%20Sciences