Globalization: connecting our world for better and for worse.
Pros: improves economies, reveals similarities between cultures, and connects humanity.
Cons: diminishes individual cultures, increases gap between social classes, and shares diseases.
Prior to globalization, there existed a clear distinction between the illnesses of developed versus developing nations. The wealthy were effected by noncommunicable diseases of “affluence”, typically obesity, whereas the third world suffered from infectious diseases related to poverty, such as cholera. Globalization has since diminished these differences. Now, noncommunicable diseases pervade all nations, rich and poor, and are the leading causes of death throughout the world. This international shift in illness to preventable, noncommunicable diseases is discussed in the article “Global Noncommunicable Diseases - Where Worlds Meet,” published by The New England Journal of Medicine.
The article attributes the changing health problems as a side effect of the increasingly globalized market, which has brought us mass production of cheap synthetic foods and the influence of media on impressionable consumers. It has also brought us an unprecedented problem: for the first time in history, it is more affordable and accessible to purchase junk food than whole foods. These factors, as well as others, have made unhealthy lifestyles more acceptable, and in some cases the norm, in almost all regions of the world.
High and low income nations share not only an unhealthy lifestyle and the same chronic diseases, but also the same risk factors. Almost all risk factors overlap between high, middle, and low income countries. The most shared components include: high blood pressure, tobacco use, physical inactivity, high blood glucose levels, and high cholesterol levels. Obviously, this overlap was brought about by globalization and its many facets.
The article not only discusses implications of noncommunicable diseases on health, but also on economic development. Chronic disease will effect the prosperity of nations, as it reduces the productivity of its people on a long term scale. And, since economic growth of a nation inherently depends on the health of its people, these persistent disease will result in economic decline. The nations suggests that nations should unite in their common interest, prosperity, to recognize their common problems and solve them, This, combined with “levels of policy, health care delivery, health communication, and education,” are the only ways the public health crisis of noncommunicable can be overcome.
Globalization cannot account for the prevalence of all noncommunicable diseases in developing and developed nations. Certain shared chronic diseases predate the our modern globalized society. For instance, mental health illness (i.e. bipolar disorder) is a naturally caused occurrence and an inherent problem for all of humanity, superseding culture and effecting all communities. However, what does vary is the culturally specific attitude towards these illnesses; some cultures hold a stigma regarding mental health problems, whereas others are more understanding. For public health initiatives regarding mental health to be effective, they must be culturally specific, as an understanding of varying attitudes is integral. Once the culture is understood, the three levels of prevention can be implemented:
- Primary: educating communities about changing the pervading mindsets on mental health issues.
- Secondary: providing those with predisposition to resources and teaching them to control their symptoms.
- Tertiary: treating and counseling those individuals who are effected.
Once policies are implemented, communities are educated, and the ill are treated, changes in mental health can occur.
Hi Anna,
ReplyDeleteI thought this was a very interesting article and was surprised to see that even those residing in "poor" countries are effected by the diseases of "affluence".
In addition to the spread of cheap, processed foods, we have also spread technologies that allow people to be more sedentary, which also helps contribute to chronic disease.
You raise a good point from the article about, chronic disease being detrimental to the continued development of the less developed nations. At the same time though, adopting a "western" lifestyle may be the only successful model of development available. What do you think?
Your discussion of prevention is interesting. But I'm a little confused are you talking about how to prevent mental illness or maladaptive attitudes about mental illness? Also please reread questions 3 and 4 in the assignment, how do you define primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention?
Michael
Hi Dr. Crupain,
ReplyDeleteI was discussing the need to change attitudes about mental illness as a form of primary intervention. In some cases, those effected with mental illness can be barred from treatment if the community does not recognize or stigmatizes the illness. As a form of primary intervention, the community should be educated about mental heath so the collective mindset can be change and people can be treated. This is more effective than trying to prevent the mental illness from initially occurring, because its origins are still not very well understood. Secondary prevention would simply be identifying those at risk of mental illness (i.e. those with a family history) and ensuring they have the resources to understand and to control their possible symptoms. Finally, tertiary prevention for mental health would be the treatment of those affected. However, this ultimate form of prevention would not be possible if primary intervention were not implemented, as communities would not see a need seek treatment for these patients if the mental illness is not understood.
Also, the approach towards mental illness would vary greatly between communities in developed and developing countries. The intervention strategy I presented is better suited for communities in developing nations, where there tends to be less of an understanding of mental health. The Public Health approach for developed areas should be different, as these areas tend to have a better understanding. Intervention in these areas should mainly be ensuring that those effected receive treatment. Also, an alternative form of primary intervention could be changing the dynamic of communities to decrease the potential for onset of a mental health problem. For example, initiatives to reduce levels of domestic violence or crime so people in the neighborhood don’t become affected with illnesses such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Furthermore, here is how I personally define the three levels of Public Health prevention:
Primary prevention: ensuring a community has the opportunity to live a healthy life style (i.e. food access in food deserts), educating the community (i.e. the importance of eating healthy), and eliminating risk factors (i.e. taxing unhealthy foods).
Secondary prevention: identifying those at risk, intervening to prevent future problems, and providing access to medical care.
Tertiary prevention: providing optimal treatment and recovery for those who are effected.
Thanks for the feedback!
Anna
Thanks for the clarification.
ReplyDeleteMichael