Thought theories (TBC) and models (MBC) of behaviour change have a lot in common, there are a few obvious differences between the two (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C.D.C.), n. d.). Unlike TBC, MBC are more limiting in terms of the strategies that they are implemented with. Though both emanate from every domain of social sciences, TBC include a combination of specific laws, while MBC are supposed to represent a specific system (Cottrell, Girvan & McKenzie, 2012).
It is crucial to use theories in health education, since these theories allow for getting a specific framework for evaluating specific phenomena. Theories serve as the basis for developing models, which are used to address a certain problem. MBC, in their turn, can be seen as tools for completing a specific task and reaching a certain goal (Cottrell, Girvan & McKenzie, 2012). Herein the difference between the two lies (Thackeray et al., 2012).
The Socio-Ecological Model (SEM) allows for tracing the correlations between the environmental and the societal factors (Cobb et al., 2011). With the help of the SEM, it becomes possible to consider behavioral changes with regard to a variety of external factors, including both environmental (e.g., the resources available, the amount of CO2 emissions, the average temperature, etc.) and the societal (e.g., the healthcare tradition, the quality of nursing education, etc.).
Hence, SEM can be applied on an individual, group and organization level (Cottrell, Girvan & McKenzie, 2012). Seeing how the SEM theories presuppose that people’s change towards the use of the resources must be changed, it will be reasonable to assume that behavior change theories can be applied to the exosystem of the SEM, i.e., to the point of changing one’s idea of ecology based on one’s culture and traditions accepted within a particular society (Kittleson, 2009).
For a microsystm, the Theory of Planned Behavior can be viewed as an option, since it allows for addressing an issue on a personal level. For the changes in the microsystem, the Health Belief Model can be adopted owing to its focus on persuasion as the key method for helping identify the perceived threat (National Commission for Health Education Credentialing, Inc., 2010).
The macrosystem will require a Transtheoretical Model, which predisposes the theoretical readiness of the agent in question. Finally, for facilitating changes in the exosystem, the Diffusion of Innovation approach involving a radical change in the traditions and beliefs of a certain society is recommended (Holman & White, 2011). In health education, each of the theories mentioned above has its significance. For example, the Diffusion of Innovation defines people’s niche in a specific environment, whereas the Transtheoretical Model explores the methods of convincing the agent in shaping their idea of the current system (Sneiderman, 2011).
The efficacy of the Health Belief Model is predisposed by its metacognitive nature (Villarica, 2011); by adopting it, one learns about the essence of one’s own well-being and the factors that affect it. Finally, the Theory of Planned Behavior teaches how to shape one’s behavior towards health and the related issues; hence, it plays an important role in health education (United States Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012).
Among the key models, the Transtheoretical, the Social Marketing, the Community Readiness, the Precede–Proceed, the Social Learning and the Integrated Behavioral Model, as well as the Ecological Model of Health Behavior and the Subjective Culture Model, should be named. Aaa. As far as the attributes of each model are concerned, the following table explains the key specifics of the theories above:
As the table above displays, each of the models includes a specific means of raising awareness concerning the health issues (Jeanfreau & Jack, 2010), as well as the elements of meta-cognition, i.e., the means of allowing the patient understand how their body maintains a healthy state (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C.D.C.), 2009).
The Transtheoretical model was used as the means to address the risk of heart failure (Sneed & Paul, 2003). The Social Marketing model, in its turn, was applied to a case of raising awareness concerning a specific healthcare issue (Aras, 2011). Finally, the Community Readiness model was utilized as a method of addressing mammography issues (Fair et al., 2012).
As case studies show, the Social Learning and the Integrated Behavioral Model can be characterized by meta-cognition (White & Evans, 2014), environmental awareness can be attributed to the Ecological Model of Health Behavior (Licina, 2012) and cultural plurality is the key feature of the Subjective Culture Model (Lee, 2000). With the adoption of proper strategies, a faster recovery of the patient can be expected.
Reference List
Aras, R. (2011). Social marketing in healthcare. Australasian Medical Journal, 4(8), 418-424.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C.D.C.). (n. d.). HIV, other STD, and teen pregnancy prevention and Idaho students. Web.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C.D.C.). (2009). The health communicator’s social media toolkit. Web.
Cobb, N. K., Graham, A. L., Byron, M. J., Niaura, R. S., & Abrams, D. B. (2011). Online social networks and smoking cessation: A scientific research agenda. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 13(4), e119.
Cottrell, R. R., Girvan, J. T., & McKenzie, J. F. (2012). Principles and foundations of health promotion and education (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Benjamin Cummings. Web.
Fair, A. M., Monahan, P. O., Russell, K., Zhao, Q. & Champion, V. L. The interaction of perceived risk and benefits and the relationship to predicting mammography adherence in African American Women. Oncology Nursing Forum, 39(1): 53-60.
Holman, D., & White, M. C. (2011). Dietary behaviors related to cancer prevention among pre-adolescents and adolescents: The gap between recommendations and reality. Nutrition Journal, 10, 60-67. Web.
Jeanfreau, S. G., & Jack, L. (2010). Appraising qualitative research in health education: Guidelines for public health educators. Health Promotion Practice, 11(5), 612-617. Web.
Kittleson, M. J. (2009). The future of technology in health education: Challenging the traditional delivery dogma. American Journal of Health Education, 40(6), 310-316. Web.
Lee, J. A. (2000). Adapting Triandis’s Model of Subjective Culture and social behavior relations to consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(2), 117-126.
Licina, D. (2012).Negative health behavior: A personal responsibility or not? U.S. Army Medical Department Journal, 1, 14-18.
National Commission for Health Education Credentialing, Inc. (2010). Areas of responsibilities, competencies, and sub-competencies for the health education specialists 2010. Web.
Sneed, N. V. & Paul, S. C. (2003). Readiness for behavioral changes in patients with heart failure. American Journal of Critical Care, 12(5): 444-453.
Sneiderman, P. (2011). You are what you tweet: Tracking public health trends by Twitter. Web.
Thackeray, R., Neiger, B. L., Smith, A, K., & Van Wagenen, S. B. (2012). Adoption and use of social media among public health departments. BioMed Central Public Health, 12, 242-248.
United States Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). Occupational employment statistics. Web.
Villarica, H. (2011). 10 things we can learn from your health-related Twitter rants. Web.
White, W. L. & Evans, Jr., A. C. (2014). The recovery agenda: The shared role of peers and professionals. Public Health Reviews, 35(2), 1-15.