The facets of community and sum are closely connected and people tend to utilize the footings interchangeably. The best manner to explicate the difference between the two constructs is by illustrations to distinguish and acquire a clearer apprehension of the difference between the two constructs. This paper will specify sum and community giving a brief support from current literature. The paper will besides analyze and give the differences between the two footings plus describe and place the chosen sum based on the wellness issue of bosom disease. The Christoffel’s three phases of a conceptual model for protagonism will be described. Then each phase as an sum selected is described.
Community and Aggregate Footings Defines
In community wellness attention nursing. sum is defined as the whole population. which is being used to depict a given environment. The term sum is used to mention or specify a group of people in a society who are believed to hold similar or common jobs and challenges in their life. These people should portion similar features and besides they should be populating in the same country. The group which is to be described should be enduring from the same medical or wellness attention job and should be in hunt of similar medicine or wellness attention services. Aggregate in nursing puting literally is defined as the full. whole. or the amount of a given group with similar jobs. ( Nies & A ; McEwen. 2010 ) .
Differences Between Aggregate and Community
There are those people who use the term community when mentioning to aggregate. Aggregate and community are two different constructs but are closely connected. Community in nursing wellness attention scene is used to mention to the general population in a given country. A community is the full population that includes the ill and healthy population. When discoursing about the sum. we refer to the population. which is sing a wellness status along with those who are responsible of taking attention of the group that are ill. The full population that comprise of healthy and ill in the society is referred to as the community. ( Stanhope & A ; Lancaster. 2009 ) .
Identified Aggregate and Description as a wellness Issue
There are those people who use the term community and the term sum to mention to the same thing or to intend something the same. There stand important differences between the term community and the term sum. When we talk of sum. we are mentioning to a population. which has similar medical jobs or challenges and live in the same part or geographical country. For the community. it’s the general population that involves the ill and those who are non ill. In this instance. Adults enduring from bosom disease in Illinois is an aggregative population that is used to specify the current wellness attention challenges. In the province of Illinois. specifically the Sangamon county community. grounds shows that bosom disease is the figure one ground for decease of grownups in the full province of Illinois and in Sangamon county ( Illinois Department of Public Health [ IDPH ] . 2010 ) .
Christoffel’s Three Stages of a Conceptual Framework for Advocacy Christoffel’s three phases for protagonism include information. scheme. and action. The phases take topographic point at the same time. The first phase. information. includes calling. depicting. and mensurating the public wellness job. The 2nd phase. scheme. involves utilizing the information in the first phase to develop a program of action for the publicity of public wellness. The phase includes. This phase involves the communicating of information to the public and wellness attention professionals. Groups can so be assembled to concentrate on the issue and program needed alterations. Schemes can include public instruction messages. runs. and imperativeness conferences. This action may affect fund elevation. carrying persons to alter their lives. and statute law engagement.
To accomplish action. alterations in mentalities. behaviours. and resource proviso. Public wellness protagonism transpires at two degrees: the individual/family degree and in the larger community degree ( Christoffel. 2000 ) . Advocacy that focuses on the interpersonal or intrapersonal degree is often referred to as patient protagonism. Patient protagonism involves any “activity that benefits a patient” ( Torrey. 2010 ) . It can use single patient attention. groups that develop policies. and statute law alterations to better the wellness attention system for patients. There are many illustrations of patient protagonism organisations. which include authorities groups such as the Center for Disease Control. American Heart Association. and single patient advocators who act as health care helpers ( Torrey. 2010 ) .
Using Each Phase as an advocator for the Aggregate
The first phase in the Christoffel’s protagonism model negotiations about the information factor. The information names. describes. and measures the public wellness job. When discoursing the issue of bosom disease. This phase can be used to depict the disease procedure. the hazard factors involved. and it’s complications. During this phase. the private sector or the authorities sector get involved so as to develop the research needed that can be used to mensurate the public wellness job. Evidence shows that this phase is relevant merely because it assists develop all statistical information and consequences that are suited in order to turn to the protagonism challenge. The first phase in Christoffel’s protagonism model is to develop a research on bosom disease within the society. This phase will assist develop relevant information on the mortality rate related to bosom disease and/or its complications ( Christoffel. 2000 ) .
The 2nd phase in Christoffel’s protagonism model is the phase of scheme. Having collected relevant information about the job of wellness attention issue. the 2nd phase helps work on the information so as to understand the job wholly. In this phase. the cardinal thought is to acquire consequences that will assist come up with some schemes on how to near the wellness job. Experts in several Fieldss translate the research findings so that proper consequences are developed to develop a program of action ( Christoffel. 2011 ) .
The 3rd phase in Christoffel’s protagonism model is the phase of action. Strategies. which are developed in the 2nd phase on how to manage the wellness issue are implemented and monitored in the concluding phase of Christoffel’s protagonism model ( Christoffel. 2011 ) . It is alleged that when schemes in phase two are implemented and monitored they provide the best consequences in regard to the wellness attention environment. ( Stanhope & A ; Lancaster. 2009 ) . Public wellness messages on the intelligence and postings can assist educate the community about bosom disease. There are besides local doctors who provide free larning seminars on specific diseases. Raising financess to assist with run steps can besides be implemented during this phase. Legislation can be educated on the wellness issue to convert policy shapers to acquire involved. The chief portion of this phase is action. The end is to act upon people to alter specific wonts that will cut down the hazard of developing bosom disease.
The facets of community and sum are closely connected. and in most instances a batch of people tend to utilize them interchangeably. These two footings are used interchangeably. but they have different significances. There are those people who use the term community and the term sum to mention to the same thing or to intend something the same. There stand important differences between the term community and the term sum. Aggregate is the populations that has similar wellness jobs and are seeking similar wellness attention services. but the community is the full population that carries the sick and the healthy. The usage of Christoffel’s protagonism model helps work out a job in conformity.
Christoffel. K. ( 2011 ) . Public wellness Advocacy: Procedure and Product. American Journal of Public Health Illinois Department of Public Health. ( 2010 ) . Leading causes of decease. Illinois. 2010. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. idph. province. Illinois. us/health/bdmd/leadingdeaths10. htm Nies. M. ( Mary Albrecht ) . & A ; McEwen. M. ( 2010 ) . Community/public wellness nursing: advancing the wellness of populations. Elsevier/Saunders Stanhope. M. . & A ; Lancaster. J. ( 2009 ) . Foundations of nursing in the community: community-oriented pattern. Mosby/Elsevier