Running head: HEALTH PROMOTION MODEL 1

Health Promotion Model

Name

Institution
HEALTH PROMOTION MODEL 2

Health Promotion Model

Health models are conceptual frameworks or ways of viewing health. Designed by Nola

J. Pender, Health Promotion Model (HPM) was developed as a complementary counterpart to

health protection. It is directed towards advancing a patient’s welfare. Hence, it describes health

as a positive dynamic state rather than just the absence of disease. HPM focuses on three major

areas; behavioural outcomes, personal characteristics and experiences, and behavior-specific

cognitions and effects (Johnson, 1993). According to this model, each person has a unique set of

characteristics and experiences that affect his or her actions. As agriculture continues to record a

high rank as a dangerous industry in the United States, this study seeks to highlight the

disadvantages of using HPM.

Health promotion model uses behavioural outcomes. Hence, it assumes the fact that not

all health behaviour is based on rational or conscious choice. Some outcomes are as a result of

external and internal factors that lead results and outcomes that are different from the anticipated.

Different individuals react differently to situations and environments, which means that an

assumption used on one individual will be entirely different on another. This brings about

inconsistency in identification and contingency actions.

The model lacks concepts associated with strategies for change. Individuals in dynamic

environments and setups will have a change in behaviours and experiences. Change in

experiences sometimes leads to change in personal characteristics. Hence, the health behaviour is

expected to change respectively. This means that HPM will not accommodate the change in the

subjects as anticipated especially in environments where the change is rapid and unpredictable.

Health related actions from HPM are presumed to be cost effective regarding outcomes.

Hence, HPM has with time been viewed as a rather cost-effective model than a health intensive
HEALTH PROMOTION MODEL 3

mode of viewing health. It has been used mostly in prevention actions that are geared at crafting

prevention measures and actions in health. Educating individuals on risks and health hazards are

some of the activities that are used as prevention measures.

The model focuses on individual factors rather than environmental factors. Individual

characteristics are mostly affected by the environment and are always determined by the

reactions the individual has towards the environment. Different individuals have different

reactions in the same environment. Hence, different characteristics will be experienced. Personal

experiences are majorly affected by the environment where the individual is in.

Socioeconomic factors that are not taken into consideration by the HPM encourage

victim-blaming in behavioural health view. The way individuals interact and correlate encourage

different perspectives in the individuals. Consistency is therefore affected by these factors will

contribute more to the health.

HPM has been viewed as a model that pays insufficient attention to the community.

Factors that are community-oriented are overseen and are not considered in analysing and

coming up with health actions. Education programs that foster diversity, amenities and

community-led products are some of the aspects that this model has not fostered. If taken into

consideration, health factors that directly affect the community, which links down to the

individuals can be addressed at the community level. For instance, educating the community on

farm-based injuries would be more effective if addressed at the community level as opposed to

having individual training.

Health promotion model describes policies rather than the actual actions. For instance,

when addressing vaccinations and immunisations, the model describes the essence of having the

vaccinations. It does not include the actualization of the vaccination. Hence, it does not provide
HEALTH PROMOTION MODEL 4

full health action plan or process. This makes it limited as far as providing the solutions is

concerned. It is worth noting that the education process offered in an HPM model is more

concerned with creating awareness rather than implementing the actions and plans designed for

the process.

The relationship between the factors is also not well defined. Some health behaviours are

caused by a series of factors. It is essential to understand the correlation within the factors so as

to understand the actual situation. Lack of definition of the factors’ relation brings up the

challenge of handling complicated health behaviours and actionable plans that need to

accompany.

However, others of a contrary opinion argue that most of the behaviours, experiences and

personal characteristics adhere to the model and that general assumptions guide and enhance

predicting of the health behaviour. They also argue that HBC as a self-care model have health

outcomes that are dependent on factors such as psychological, physiological, social, and spiritual

factors. This means that the health outcomes are affected by these factors.

In conclusion, the paper has identified that health promotion model was not the ideal

model in the study. Lack of including the community in the model and using individual-oriented

approaches made it inadequate for the model.

References

Sakraida, T. J. (2010). Health promotion model. Nursing theorists and their work, 7, 434-453.

Johnson, J. L., Ratner, P. A., Bottorff, J. L., & Hayduk, L. A. (1993). An Exploration of Pender's

Health Promotion Model Using LISREL. Nursing Research, 42(3), 132-138.

DiClemente, R. J., Crosby, R. A., & Kegler, M. (Eds.). (2009). Emerging theories in health

promotion practice and research. John Wiley & Sons.