Citation

Mittelmark MB. Scand. J. Public Health 2014; 42(15 Suppl): 17-24.

Affiliation

Department of Health Promotion and Development, Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, Norway maurice.mittelmark@iuh.uib.no.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2014, Associations of Public Health in the Nordic Countries Regions, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/1403494814545108

PMID

25416569

Abstract

The settings-based approach to health promotion (HP) employs a social ecological (SE) framework to integrate HP into the usual activities of the setting and to increase the setting's support for healthy choices. The SE approach calls for systems thinking to account for the inextricable relationship between people, their behaviour and their environment. Knowledge about a setting can be used to mobilise people to participate in HP, to optimise success by taking into account the local context, and to anticipate and avoid barriers to success. In other words, the SE approach aims to help HP reach its goals for better health, established in concert with community needs and wishes. Yet, the focus on HP goals may detract attention from how intervention may have unanticipated, and even untoward effects on the setting. There is much evidence from classical ecological research that well-meaning interventions have unintended effects. Biology is so tuned to the possibility that the study of unintended effects is integral to the field. There is some evidence - but much less - that HP also has unexpected, deleterious effects. The evidence is limited because of neglect; the subject of unintended effects is only of peripheral interest in HP. This is a call for a more robust SE approach, in which frameworks used to guide settings-based HP are augmented so as to be concerned with planned effects, and also unplanned effects. What can be done to more responsibly monitor, document and report the full panoply of our effects, including detecting and preventing untoward effects?

Language: en