Introduction
Health initiative programs are global phenomena. They are as old as humankind. Continued government support has shown that all-inclusive, sustained programs to address causes of key public health problems are an underlying denominator in the health status of any country (Garrett 2007).
In Australia, a number of comprehensive programs addressing key health issues have been put in place. Greater emphasis is placed on advocacy, policy, and inter-sectoral action to help inform people’s choice of health programs. Examples of health promotion initiatives include Michelle Obama’s Lets Move program in America, Living Longer Living Better initiative, and Headspace initiative. The last two are in Australia.
Let’s Move Health Initiative
Obesity in America is an old problem. Thirty three percent of American children are overweight or obese. The condition leads to complications like diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and cancer (Batan, Li & Scanlon 2010). Almost forty percent African American and Hispanic children are affected by the problem.
The First Lady, Michelle Obama, is determined to solve the obesity problem in America. To this end, she launched the “Let’s Move” campaign. A letter was written to President Obama by Melody Barnes on behalf of the White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity. The letter detailed an action plan to solve the obesity problem. It led to the launch of Michelle Obama’s initiative (Batan et al. 2010).
Priority areas were identified by the task force. The areas include empowering parents and guardians, as well as providing the children with healthy food in schools. In addition, the task force recognised the importance of enhancing access to healthy foods in the country. Finally, the task force advised for the promotion of physical activity in school (Batan et al. 2010). The task force spent three months reviewing available research. More than 2500 people were interviewed by the task force.
Twelve federal agencies supported the ideas of Lets Move program. Today, the initiative is one of the most comprehensive and well-funded programs that are effectively addressing the age old problem of obesity. By merging all-inclusive strategies and common sense, Michelle Obama is helping to raise future healthy children.
Obesity is a condition where the body has excess fat. It is represented in terms of body mass index [BMI] (Chung et al. 2008). Grown-ups whose BMI is between 25 and 29 are regarded as unhealthy. Individuals whose ratio goes beyond 30 are regarded as obese (Nestle 2010).
In children, BMI varies with gender and age. Children with a BMI greater than 95 percentile on the sex-and-age growth chart are regarded as obese. The condition increases the risk of contracting diseases like diabetes, arthritis, cancer, and heart conditions (Chung et al. 2008). Children with obesity tend to develop into obese adults. Pregnant women who use tobacco products or who are overweight are likely to give birth to obese children (Nestle 2010). In addition, women who are diabetic are at risk of giving birth to obese children.
Let’s Move initiative recognises that no single action can reverse childhood obesity. The initiative adopts some important approaches, which include improving eating habits and increasing physical activities among children. It also advocates for control of tobacco consumption. The initiative identifies material incentives as major risk factors that contribute to obesity. Some of these incentives include the cost of food and social norms.
Others include nutritional and physical activities among peers and family members. The surrounding environment, such as availability of playground or fast food stores, is another contributing factor (Chung et al. 2008). The program advocates for the provision of information to parents and caregivers to help them provide nutritious foods to children. Let’s Move advocates for the elimination of “food and play ground deserts” (Chung et al. 2008, p. 34).
The First Lady’s initiative advocates for more opportunities to engage children in physical activity. One of the findings made in the program is that physically active children have improved motor skills. Such skills are necessary for children to attain developmental milestones (Nestle 2010).
Michelle Obama’s initiative targets the participation of every person in the society. Parents, healthcare personnel, government officials, and caregivers participate in the initiative. States have formulated policies regarding activity and provider training. Portable and fixed play equipments are a common sight in schools. The program has influenced the amount of physical activity children engage in while in school (Nestle 2010).
Research by Nestle (2010) shows that public programs like Lets Move greatly improve the nutritional value of the food given to children. Children in early childhood care centre are also healthier. Pupils under the Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) eat healthier food compared to those who bring meals to school.
Let’s Move program has taken the lead in providing healthier foods and implementing evidence-based activities. The activities promote healthy eating and encourage “developmentally-appropriate” physical activities (Chung et al. 2008, p. 23).
As ambitious as it looks, Let’s Move has not performed very well. The number of children meeting the guidelines for physical activity is not clear. Surveys show that only high school students follow the physical activity guidelines.
Another setback is the recommendation by American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Children under two years are not allowed to view television. In addition, those over two years must limit their television exposure to two hours (Wisdom et al. 2010). However, in spite of this initiative, 44% of children below two years watch television daily (Wisdom et al. 2010, p. 12).
The negative impacts that obesity has on public health and the economy justify Let’s Move initiative by Michelle Obama. Research findings show that obesity affects the lifestyle of a given population. Let’s Move is a successful public health initiative. Its ability to institute various programs and attract the support of players from different sectors of the community is laudable.
Living Longer Living Better Initiative
The gradual increase of the ageing population in Australia is a phenomenon that has greatly affected social balance. The scenario demands for shift in society’s beliefs about the old people (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012a). Man has fought so hard over the centuries to increase his life span. Australians are now enjoying an extended period of healthy existence (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2009).
Older people in Australians still have the energy, knowledge, insight, and experience to contribute to the development of the country. Their contribution in the fields of business, education, and communal participation is of great importance to the entire country. Their contribution calls for creative ways of encouraging and supporting them.
Old age does not diminish dreams and aspirations (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012b). The government has found it necessary to initiate programs that take care of the changing needs of the ageing population. Such initiatives include the Living Longer Living Better program (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2009).
Living Longer Living Better is an amalgamation of different packages that help improve the living standards of the older generation. In this program, the government aims to build “nationally consistent aged care programs” (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012c, par. 16). The initiative has provided a total of four billion dollars over the last five years (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012d).
Out of the total allocation, 995 million dollars was set aside to help the aged to stay at home. The money was used to finance the acquisition of new homecare packages. The initiative regulates arrangements for home care packages for the aged (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2009).
Another allocation includes the 54 million dollars set aside to help support the aged in their careers (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012c). Seven hundred million dollars was used to deliver better housing facilities for the aged population in the country. 1.2 billion dollars was used to support the working class among the old age population. The remaining part of the allocation went to consumer support and research. The aim was to empower the aged through advocacy and networking.
The project has improved the living standards of the older population in Australia. It is a public health initiative since it addresses both psychological and sociological needs. The initiative has direct impacts on the health status of an individual. Majority of senior citizens in the country prefer to spend their last days at home. By 2015, the initiative aims to introduce a number of programs with the help of government. One of them is the Commonwealth Home Support Program (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012d).
One of the demerits of the Living Longer Living Better initiative is high taxation rate on the entire population. Current exemptions with regards to accommodation payments among the aged are a burden to the tax payers. In conclusion, Living Longer Living Better initiative has shown that old age programs are critical in tackling health issues that are important and sensible to the aged.
The initiative focuses more on the health of the aged, largely because of the high mortality rate among the group and huge medical bills incurred by them (Kumanan & Keelan 2009). The welfare of the aged has improved greatly in the last twenty years as a result of the initiative.
Headspace Initiative in Australia
Headspace is an initiative of the National Youth Mental Health Foundation. It was launched in 2006 (Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing [AGDHA] 2007). It is part of the Australian government’s obligation to the Youth Mental Health Initiative (AGDHA 2007). The main aim of the initiative is to promote and expand access to mental health services. It also aims at improving social and economic security among the youth. The initiative targets those aged between 12 and 25 (Hardey 2008).
Headspace provides holistic services via Communities of Youth Services [CYS] (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006). It creates community awareness as far as young people suffering from mental complications are concerned (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006). One of the components of the initiative that helps it achieve its mandate includes the Headspace National Office (HNO). It is a research and information dissemination arm of the organisation.
An independent evaluation of Headspace was conducted in 2008 by the Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC). The centre rated the program positively. A longitudinal evaluation, which included a mixed methods research, was conducted. The evaluation made use of qualitative and quantitative data from different sources.
Headspace has continued to provide mental health services to young people in the country. Some of the positive impacts of the program include improved governance of clinical services to the youth. It has come up with effective mental health policies and procedures (BeyondBlue 2006, par. 4).
To ensure that the program achieves the envisaged objectives, those tasked with the responsibility of implementing the Headspace initiative have come up with a number of strategies (Wisdom et al. 2010). The program has come up with campaigns aimed at increasing community awareness.
The management has also introduced youth-friendly services and centres accessible to the youth. The initiative has increased the number of young people seeking and accessing mental health services in the country. Current research shows that the program has provided services to more than fourteen thousand young people.
An evaluation of Headspace program unearthed some limitations and recommended that the period of setting up centres be increased to twelve months. The duration would allow enough time to recruit qualified members of staff, as well as refine policies and procedures (BeyondBlue 2006).
Another limitation identified involves the number of times that one can access psychiatric services. Psychiatric services should be increased to improve the mental health of young people in Australia. It is evident that Headspace has managed to achieve its objectives of addressing the mental health issues among the youth. The initiation of similar programs will go a long way in improving mental health among the Australian population.
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006, Mental health in Australia: a snapshot, 2004-05. Web.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2009, Survey of disability, ageing and carers, Australia 2009. Web.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012a, Caring for children: gender indicators. Web.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012b, Labour force status by sex 15-64 years. Web.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012c, Labour force status aged 15 years and over. Web.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2012d, Caring in the community, Australia. Web.
Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing 2007, National mental health report 2007, Sidney, Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing.
Batan, M., Li, R., & Scanlon, K. 2010. Is child care providers’ support for breastfeeding associated with breastfeeding duration?, American Public Health Association, New York.
Beyond Blue 2006, BeyondBlue: about us. Web.
Chung, M., Raman, G., Trikalinos, T., Lau, J., & Ip, S. 2008, ‘Interventions in primary care to promote breastfeeding: an evidence review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force’, Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 149 no. 8, pp. 565-82.
Garrett, L. 2007, ‘The challenge of global health’, Foreign Affairs, vol. 86 no. 1, pp. 14-38.
Hardey, M. 2008, ‘Public health and Web 2.0’, Perspectives in Public Health, vol. 128 no. 4, pp. 181-189.
Kumanan, W. & Keelan, J. 2009, ‘Coping with public health 2.0’, Canadian Medical Association Journal, vol. 180 no. 10, p. 1080.
Nestle, M. 2010, Health care reform in action: calorie labelling goes national. Web.
Wisdom, J., Downs, J., & Loewenstein, G. 2010, ‘Promoting healthy choices: information versus convenience’, Applied Economics, vol. 2, pp. 164–178.