Social Conditions
Social Isolation
Social Environment
Health Status Disparities
Socioeconomic Factors
Social Class
Environment
Social Support
Risk Factors
Social Perception
Social Adjustment
Social Dominance
Social Media
Social Work
Social Sciences
Social Distance
The broken mirror. A self psychological treatment perspective for relationship violence. (1/306)
Clinicians face formidable challenges in working with male perpetrators of domestic violence. Many treatment programs use a confrontational approach that emphasizes male entitlement and patriarchal societal attitudes, without honoring the genuine psychological pain of the abusive male. Although some men with strong psychopathic tendencies are almost impossible to treat, the majority of spouse-abusing males respond best to an empathic, client-centered, self psychological approach that also includes education about sociocultural issues and specific skill building. Understanding the deprivations in mirroring selfobject functions from which these men typically suffer facilitates clinical treatment response. While insisting that men take full responsibility for their abusive behavior, treatment approaches can still be most effective by addressing inherent psychological issues. Group leaders who can offer respect for perpetrators' history, their experience of powerlessness, and their emotional injuries in primary relationships are more likely to make an impact. (+info)What is the future for equity within health policy? (2/306)
In spite of differences in meaning, equity is generally accepted as an important social and economic policy goal. However, recent policy debates suggest that this consensus is under challenge. This paper explores the current debate between the 'New Right' and its opponents, and how different approaches affect health policy. It is strongly argued that if equity is not to remain a misunderstood concept, it is essential to clarify the arguments in its favour, as well as the steps required to protect its position within policy. The paper then goes on to justify the concern with equity, the broad goals equity seeks to achieve, and the practical translation of these goals into health policy. In the final section essentially practical issues are raised, by considering planning strategies and what research is necessary to support and develop pragmatic planning based on equity goals. (+info)Strategic physician communication and oncology clinical trials. (3/306)
PURPOSE: Clinical trials are the primary means for determining new, effective treatments for cancer patients, yet the number of patients that accrue is relatively limited. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between physician behavior and patient accrual to a clinical trial by videotaping the interaction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-eight patient-physician interactions involving 12 different oncologists were videotaped in several clinics at the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute (Tampa, FL). The purpose of each interaction was to present the possibility of a clinical trial to the patient. A coding system, the Moffitt Accrual Analysis System, was developed by the authors to code behaviors that represented both the legal-informational and social influence models of communication behavior. Thirty-two patients agreed to participate in the clinical trial. RESULTS: Videotaping was found to be a viable, valid, and reliable method for studying the interaction. Physicians who were observed to use both models of influence were found to enroll more patients. Thus, patients were more likely to accrue to the trial when their physician verbally presented items normally included in an informed consent document and when they behaved in a reflective, patient-centered, supportive, and responsive manner. Discussion of benefits, side effects, patient concerns and resources to manage the concerns were all associated with accrual. CONCLUSION: This research has implications for modifying physician behavior and, thus, increasing the numbers of patients accruing to oncology clinical trials. (+info)Exploring the scope for advocacy by paediatricians. (4/306)
AIMS: To ascertain the type and extent of problems requiring advocacy in paediatrics. To develop an approach for analysing problems according to their root causes and the level of society at which advocacy is needed. METHODS: Nine paediatricians kept detailed clinical diaries for two weeks to identify problems. Classifications were developed to categorise problems by cause and the level of society at which they needed to be addressed. The press was surveyed for one week for childhood issues attracting media attention. RESULTS: 60 problems requiring advocacy were identified. Root causes included failures within agencies, between agencies, and inadequate provision. In addition to advocacy required individually, "political" action was needed at the community level (16 issues), city level (16 issues), and nationally (15 issues). 103 articles were found in the press, these did not relate closely to issues identified by clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Many opportunities for advocacy arise in the course of daily work. A systematic way of analysing them has been developed for use in planning action. To optimise the health and health care of children, there is a need to train and support paediatricians in advocacy work for local as well as national issues. Ten issues were identified that might be prioritised by paediatricians working on an agenda for action. (+info)Cardiovascular risk factors and the neighbourhood environment: a multilevel analysis. (5/306)
BACKGROUND: This article examines whether the neighbourhood environment influences intermediate cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors, such as obesity (body mass index [BMI]), and lifestyle factors, such as no physical activity and smoking, when adjusted for the individual socioeconomic status (SES). METHODS: The study consists of face-to-face interviews from the Swedish Annual Level of Living Survey (SALLS) matched with the social status of the respondents' residential areas measured by two composite indices, the Care Need Index (CNI) and the Townsend score. The response rate was about 80%. This study was limited to the residents aged 25-74 years and consists of 9240 interviews from the years 1988-1989, when there were extended items in the SALLS about health and lifestyle. The data were analysed using a hierarchical logistic regression model. RESULTS: There was a gradient within every SES group so that respondents with a low (or intermediate or high) educational level exhibited an increasing proportion of daily smokers, physically inactive people and obese individuals with increasing neighbourhood deprivation. The multilevel model showed that respondents living in the most deprived neighbourhoods had an increased risk for being a daily smoker, engaging in no physical activity and being obese when adjusted for the individual SES. CONCLUSIONS: We showed that the area level has an important influence on risk factors for CVD which goes beyond the individual educational attainment. An increased level of living standard, more resources for primary health care and health promotion targeting the community level should be beneficial. (+info)Social background, adult body-height and health. (6/306)
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To study the socio-demographic determinants of body-height and the bearing of these determinants on the association between body-height and health among Finnish adults. DATA AND METHOD: Cross-sectional population survey including questions on social background, body-height and health, and retrospective questions on childhood living conditions. The data derive from a representative Survey on Living Conditions collected by Statistics Finland in 1994. The response rate was 73%. Male and female respondents > or =20 years were included in the analysis (N = 8212). Statistical methods include regression analysis and logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Body-height was strongly associated with year of birth, region, childhood living conditions and education among adult men and women. Body-height was also associated with limiting long-standing illness and perceived health as below good. Tall men had the best health and short men the poorest health. Among women the association of body-height with health differed from men, as tall women showed high levels of limiting long-standing illness, notably musculo-skeletal diseases. Adjusting for the background variables weakened but did not abolish the association between poor health and short stature among men and women. CONCLUSIONS: Short stature is associated with poor health among Finnish men and women. A non-linear association among women was found for musculo-skeletal diseases. The studied social background factors explained only little of the association between body-height and health. (+info)The environmental genome project: ethical, legal, and social implications. (7/306)
The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences is supporting a multiyear research initiative examining genetic influences on environmental response. Proponents of this new initiative, known as the Environmental Genome Project, hope that the information learned will improve our understanding of environmentally associated diseases and allow clinicians and public health officials to target disease-prevention strategies to those who are at increased risk. Despite these potential benefits, the project presents several ethical and social challenges. Of immediate concern is the protection of individual research participants. Other ethical issues relate to the application of research results and how study findings could affect social priorities. Clarifying these emerging areas of concern, many of which have not received adequate attention in the existing bioethics literature, is an important step toward minimizing potential research-related risks and defining research needs. (+info)Why reduce health inequalities? (8/306)
It is well known that social, cultural and economic factors cause substantial inequalities in health. Should we strive to achieve a more even share of good health, beyond improving the average health status of the population? We examine four arguments for the reduction of health inequalities.1 Inequalities are unfair. Inequalities in health are undesirable to the extent that they are unfair, or unjust. Distinguishing between health inequalities and health inequities can be contentious. Our view is that inequalities become "unfair" when poor health is itself the consequence of an unjust distribution of the underlying social determinants of health (for example, unequal opportunities in education or employment).2 Inequalities affect everyone. Conditions that lead to marked health disparities are detrimental to all members of society. Some types of health inequalities have obvious spillover effects on the rest of society, for example, the spread of infectious diseases, the consequences of alcohol and drug misuse, or the occurrence of violence and crime.3 Inequalities are avoidable. Disparities in health are avoidable to the extent that they stem from identifiable policy options exercised by governments, such as tax policy, regulation of business and labour, welfare benefits and health care funding. It follows that health inequalities are, in principle, amenable to policy interventions. A government that cares about improving the health of the population ought therefore to incorporate considerations of the health impact of alternative options in its policy setting process.3 Interventions to reduce health inequalities are cost effective. Public health programmes that reduce health inequalities can also be cost effective. The case can be made to give priority to such programmes (for example, improving access to cervical cancer screening in low income women) on efficiency grounds. On the other hand, few programmes designed to reduce health inequalities have been formally evaluated using cost effectiveness analysis. We conclude that fairness is likely to be the most influential argument in favour of acting to reduce disparities in health, but the concept of equity is contested and susceptible to different interpretations. There is persuasive evidence for some outcomes that reducing inequalities will diminish "spill over" effects on the health of society at large. In principle, you would expect that differences in health status that are not biologically determined are avoidable. However, the mechanisms giving rise to inequalities are still imperfectly understood, and evidence remains to be gathered on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce such inequalities. (+info)Medical professionals may use the term "social conditions" to refer to various environmental and sociological factors that can impact an individual's health and well-being. These conditions can include things like:
* Socioeconomic status (SES): This refers to a person's position in society, which is often determined by their income, education level, and occupation. People with lower SES are more likely to experience poor health outcomes due to factors such as limited access to healthcare, nutritious food, and safe housing.
* Social determinants of health (SDOH): These are the conditions in which people live, learn, work, and play that affect a wide range of health risks and outcomes. Examples include poverty, discrimination, housing instability, education level, and access to healthy foods and physical activity opportunities.
* Social support: This refers to the emotional, informational, and instrumental assistance that individuals receive from their social networks, including family, friends, neighbors, and community members. Strong social support is associated with better health outcomes, while lack of social support can contribute to poor health.
* Social isolation: This occurs when people are disconnected from others and have limited social contacts or interactions. Social isolation can lead to negative health outcomes such as depression, cognitive decline, and increased risk for chronic diseases.
* Community context: The physical and social characteristics of the communities in which people live can also impact their health. Factors such as access to green spaces, transportation options, and safe housing can all contribute to better health outcomes.
Overall, social conditions can have a significant impact on an individual's health and well-being, and addressing these factors is essential for promoting health equity and improving overall public health.
Social isolation, in the context of health and medicine, refers to the lack of social connections, interactions, or engagement with other people or communities. It is a state of being separated from others, lacking companionship or meaningful communication, which can lead to feelings of loneliness and disconnection. Social isolation can be self-imposed or imposed by external factors such as mobility issues, loss of loved ones, or discrimination. Prolonged social isolation has been linked to various negative health outcomes, including mental health disorders, cognitive decline, and increased risk for chronic conditions like heart disease and stroke.
Social behavior, in the context of medicine and psychology, refers to the ways in which individuals interact and engage with others within their social environment. It involves various actions, communications, and responses that are influenced by cultural norms, personal values, emotional states, and cognitive processes. These behaviors can include but are not limited to communication, cooperation, competition, empathy, altruism, aggression, and conformity.
Abnormalities in social behavior may indicate underlying mental health conditions such as autism spectrum disorder, schizophrenia, or personality disorders. Therefore, understanding and analyzing social behavior is an essential aspect of diagnosing and treating various psychological and psychiatric conditions.
A "social environment" is not a term that has a specific medical definition, but it is often used in the context of public health and social sciences to refer to the physical and social conditions, relationships, and organized institutions that influence the health and well-being of individuals and communities.
The social environment includes factors such as:
* Social support networks (family, friends, community)
* Cultural norms and values
* Socioeconomic status (income, education, occupation)
* Housing and neighborhood conditions
* Access to resources (food, healthcare, transportation)
* Exposure to discrimination, violence, and other stressors
These factors can have a significant impact on health outcomes, as they can influence behaviors related to health (such as diet, exercise, and substance use), as well as exposure to disease and access to healthcare. Understanding the social environment is essential for developing effective public health interventions and policies that promote health equity and reduce health disparities.
Health status disparities refer to differences in the health outcomes that are observed between different populations. These populations can be defined by various sociodemographic factors such as race, ethnicity, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, disability, income, education level, and geographic location. Health status disparities can manifest as differences in rates of illness, disease prevalence or incidence, morbidity, mortality, access to healthcare services, and quality of care received. These disparities are often the result of systemic inequities and social determinants of health that negatively impact certain populations, leading to worse health outcomes compared to other groups. It is important to note that health status disparities are preventable and can be addressed through targeted public health interventions and policies aimed at reducing health inequities.
Socioeconomic factors are a range of interconnected conditions and influences that affect the opportunities and resources a person or group has to maintain and improve their health and well-being. These factors include:
1. Economic stability: This includes employment status, job security, income level, and poverty status. Lower income and lack of employment are associated with poorer health outcomes.
2. Education: Higher levels of education are generally associated with better health outcomes. Education can affect a person's ability to access and understand health information, as well as their ability to navigate the healthcare system.
3. Social and community context: This includes factors such as social support networks, discrimination, and community safety. Strong social supports and positive community connections are associated with better health outcomes, while discrimination and lack of safety can negatively impact health.
4. Healthcare access and quality: Access to affordable, high-quality healthcare is an important socioeconomic factor that can significantly impact a person's health. Factors such as insurance status, availability of providers, and cultural competency of healthcare systems can all affect healthcare access and quality.
5. Neighborhood and built environment: The physical conditions in which people live, work, and play can also impact their health. Factors such as housing quality, transportation options, availability of healthy foods, and exposure to environmental hazards can all influence health outcomes.
Socioeconomic factors are often interrelated and can have a cumulative effect on health outcomes. For example, someone who lives in a low-income neighborhood with limited access to healthy foods and safe parks may also face challenges related to employment, education, and healthcare access that further impact their health. Addressing socioeconomic factors is an important part of promoting health equity and reducing health disparities.
I'm sorry for any confusion, but "social class" is not a term that has a medical definition. It is a sociological concept that refers to the grouping of individuals in a society based on their shared economic and social positions. This can include factors such as income, education, occupation, and wealth.
However, social class can have an impact on health outcomes and access to healthcare. For example, people in lower socioeconomic groups are more likely to experience chronic diseases, mental health disorders, and have limited access to quality healthcare services compared to those in higher socioeconomic groups. This relationship is often referred to as the "social determinants of health."
The term "environment" in a medical context generally refers to the external conditions and surroundings that can have an impact on living organisms, including humans. This includes both physical factors such as air quality, water supply, soil composition, temperature, and radiation, as well as biological factors such as the presence of microorganisms, plants, and animals.
In public health and epidemiology, the term "environmental exposure" is often used to describe the contact between an individual and a potentially harmful environmental agent, such as air pollution or contaminated water. These exposures can have significant impacts on human health, contributing to a range of diseases and disorders, including respiratory illnesses, cancer, neurological disorders, and reproductive problems.
Efforts to protect and improve the environment are therefore critical for promoting human health and preventing disease. This includes measures to reduce pollution, conserve natural resources, promote sustainable development, and mitigate the impacts of climate change.
Social support in a medical context refers to the resources and assistance provided by an individual's social network, including family, friends, peers, and community groups. These resources can include emotional, informational, and instrumental support, which help individuals cope with stress, manage health conditions, and maintain their overall well-being.
Emotional support involves providing empathy, care, and encouragement to help an individual feel valued, understood, and cared for. Informational support refers to the provision of advice, guidance, and knowledge that can help an individual make informed decisions about their health or other aspects of their life. Instrumental support includes practical assistance such as help with daily tasks, financial aid, or access to resources.
Social support has been shown to have a positive impact on physical and mental health outcomes, including reduced stress levels, improved immune function, better coping skills, and increased resilience. It can also play a critical role in promoting healthy behaviors, such as adherence to medical treatments and lifestyle changes.
Medical Definition:
"Risk factors" are any attribute, characteristic or exposure of an individual that increases the likelihood of developing a disease or injury. They can be divided into modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors. Modifiable risk factors are those that can be changed through lifestyle choices or medical treatment, while non-modifiable risk factors are inherent traits such as age, gender, or genetic predisposition. Examples of modifiable risk factors include smoking, alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, and unhealthy diet, while non-modifiable risk factors include age, sex, and family history. It is important to note that having a risk factor does not guarantee that a person will develop the disease, but rather indicates an increased susceptibility.
Social perception, in the context of psychology and social sciences, refers to the ability to interpret and understand other people's behavior, emotions, and intentions. It is the process by which we make sense of the social world around us, by observing and interpreting cues such as facial expressions, body language, tone of voice, and situational context.
In medical terminology, social perception is not a specific diagnosis or condition, but rather a cognitive skill that can be affected in various mental and neurological disorders, such as autism spectrum disorder, schizophrenia, and dementia. For example, individuals with autism may have difficulty interpreting social cues and understanding other people's emotions and intentions, while those with schizophrenia may have distorted perceptions of social situations and interactions.
Healthcare professionals who work with patients with cognitive or neurological disorders may assess their social perception skills as part of a comprehensive evaluation, in order to develop appropriate interventions and support strategies.
Social adjustment, in the context of mental health and psychology, refers to an individual's ability to adapt and function effectively within their social environment. It involves developing and maintaining positive relationships with others, fulfilling various social roles (such as being a family member, friend, or employee), and meeting the expectations and demands of one's social group.
Social adjustment can be affected by various factors, including an individual's personality traits, coping skills, mental and physical health status, and life experiences. Poor social adjustment can lead to feelings of isolation, loneliness, and dissatisfaction with life, as well as increased risk for mental health problems such as depression and anxiety.
Assessing social adjustment is an important aspect of mental health care, as it can provide valuable insights into an individual's overall functioning and quality of life. Treatments such as psychotherapy and social skills training may be used to help improve social adjustment in individuals who are struggling in this area.
"Social dominance" is not a term that has a specific medical definition. However, it is a concept that is often used in the social sciences, including sociology, psychology, and anthropology. It refers to the degree of control, influence, or power that an individual or group has over others within a particular social context or hierarchy.
In some cases, social dominance may be associated with certain medical conditions or situations. For example, individuals with antisocial personality disorder or other psychiatric disorders may exhibit dominant behaviors as part of their symptoms. Similarly, social dominance can be a factor in the development and maintenance of certain types of relationships, such as those seen in abusive or coercive relationships.
However, it's important to note that social dominance is not a medical diagnosis or condition in and of itself. Rather, it is a social phenomenon that can intersect with various medical and psychological issues.
I'm sorry for any confusion, but "Social Media" is a term related to communication technologies, particularly websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking. It is not a medical concept or term, and therefore, it does not have a medical definition. If you have any questions about medical terms or concepts, I'd be happy to help with those!
Social work is a professional field of practice that promotes social change, problem-solving in human relationships, and the empowerment and liberation of people to enhance well-being. According to the International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW), social work involves "the application of social sciences, theory, knowledge, and skills to effect positive changes in individuals, groups, communities, and societies."
Social workers are trained to work with individuals, families, groups, and communities to address a wide range of social, emotional, and practical needs. They help people navigate complex systems, access resources, and advocate for their rights. Social workers may be employed in various settings, including hospitals, mental health clinics, schools, community centers, and government agencies.
In medical settings, social work is often focused on helping patients and their families cope with illness, disability, or injury. Medical social workers provide counseling, support, and advocacy to help patients and families navigate the healthcare system, access needed resources, and make informed decisions about treatment options. They may also assist with discharge planning, coordinating care transitions, and connecting patients with community-based services.
Medical social work is a specialized area of practice that requires knowledge and skills in areas such as psychosocial assessment, crisis intervention, case management, and advocacy. Medical social workers must be able to communicate effectively with healthcare professionals, patients, and families, and have a deep understanding of the social determinants of health and the impact of illness on individuals and communities.
A social hierarchy in the context of medicine and public health often refers to the organization of individuals or groups based on their relative status, power, or influence within a society or community. This structure can have significant implications for health outcomes and access to care. For instance, those with higher socioeconomic status (SES) tend to have better health and longer lifespans than those with lower SES, due in part to factors such as better access to healthcare, nutritious food, safe housing, and educational opportunities.
Social hierarchies can also intersect with other forms of inequality, such as racism, sexism, and ableism, to create additional barriers to health and well-being for marginalized communities. Understanding the role of social hierarchy in health is crucial for developing effective public health interventions and policies that address these underlying determinants of health.
I'm sorry for any confusion, but "Social Sciences" is a broad term that refers to academic disciplines that study human society and social relationships. It includes fields such as anthropology, sociology, psychology, political science, and economics. These subjects are considered part of the liberal arts and humanities, not medical sciences.
However, aspects of social sciences can intersect with medical studies in areas like medical anthropology, health psychology, sociology of health and illness, and psychiatry. For instance, medical anthropologists might study how cultural factors influence healthcare practices, while health psychologists examine the role of behavior and mental processes in health and illness.
If you're looking for a definition related to medical sciences, perhaps there was some confusion with the term. Could you please clarify or provide more context?
"Social distancing" is not a term with a specific medical definition. However, in the context of public health and infectious diseases, it generally refers to measures taken to reduce close physical contact between people in order to prevent or slow down the spread of an infectious agent. This can include things like keeping a certain distance from others, avoiding crowded places, and limiting gatherings. The specific recommendations for social distancing can vary depending on the situation and the nature of the infectious agent.
"Social change" is not a medical term, but it refers to the alterations in human interactions and relationships that transform cultural patterns, social institutions, and organizational structures within societies over time. While not a medical concept itself, social change can have significant impacts on health and healthcare. For example, shifts in societal values and norms around tobacco use or access to mental health services can influence public health outcomes and healthcare delivery.