Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 90, Issue 2, pp 99–103 | Cite as

La perception de professionnels de santé publique face à deux dimensions de la promotion de la santé: approche écologique et participation

  • Lucie Richard
  • Éric R. Breton
  • Pascale Lehoux
  • Catherine Martin
  • Denis Roy
Article
  • 1 Downloads

Résumé

Cet article vise à documenter les perceptions de professionnels en santé publique quant à deux dimensions du nouveau discours de la promotion de la santé: l’approche écologique et la participation des populations. La méthodologie implique la tenue de «groupes types» réunissant des professionnels (n = 22) d’une direction de santé publique du Québec. Les résultats indiquent une bonne intégration de l’approche écologique et de l’idéal de participation des populations à la pratique professionnelle des répondants. Plusieurs contraintes relatives au contexte de travail et aux formulations théoriques en cause sont toutefois susceptibles de limiter l’intégration de ces deux dimensions à la pratique.

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to explore public health professionals’ perceptions regarding two dimensions of the new health promotion movement: the ecological approach and the principle of community participation. Data were collected by focus-groups of public health professionals (n = 22) in one Public Health Directorate in Québec. Results indicate a fair degree of integration of these two dimensions into the respondents’ professional practice. However, limitations related to the work environment and to the theoretical underpinnings of these two components might impede the respondents’ ability to integrate them into their practice.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliographie

  1. 1.
    Morin R, Roy G. La dispensation des services de santé publique: proposition d’un cadre de référence. Can J Public Health 1996;87(1):32–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Frenk J. The new public health. Annu Rev Public Health 1993;14:469–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kickbusch I. Health promotion: A global perspective. Can J Public Health 1986;77:321–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Epp J. La santé pour tous: plan d’ensemble pour la promotion de la santé. Ottawa: Santé et bienêtre social Canada, 1986.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Organisation mondiale de la santé. Health Promotion. A Discussion Document on the Concept and Principles. Copenhague: Organisation mondiale de la santé, 1984.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Organisation mondiale de la santé, Santé et bienêtre social Canada, Association canadienne de santé publique. Charte d’Ottawa pour la promotion de la santé. Can J Public Health 1986;77:425–30.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anctil H, Martin C. La promotion de la santé: une perspective, une pratique. Santé Société, collection promotion de la santé 1988; 1.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Green LW, Kreuter, MW. Health Promotion Planning: An Educational and Environmental Approach. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1991.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Macdonald G, Bunton R. Health promotion: Discipline or disciplines? dans: R. Bunton et G. Macdonald, Health Promotion: Disciplines and Diversity. Londres: Routledge, 1991; pp 6–19.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    O’Neill M, Cardinal L. Health Promotion in Québec: Did it ever catch on? Dans: A. Pederson, M. O’Neill, I. Rootman, Health Promotion in Canada: Provincial, National and International Perspectives. Toronto: W.B. Saunders, 1994; 262–83.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stachenko S, Jenicek M. Conceptual differences between prevention and health promotion: Research implications for community health programs. Can J Public Health 1990;81:53–59.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rootman I, Goodstadt M, Potvin L, Springett J. A framework for health promotion evaluation. Dans: Rootman I, Goodstadt M, Hyndman B, et al., Evaluation in Health Promotion: Principles and Perspectives. Copenhague: Organisation mondiale de la santé, sous presse.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Green LW, Richard L, Potvin L. Ecological foundation of health promotion. Am J Health Prom 1996;10(4):270–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Q 1988;15(4):351–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stokols D, Allen J, Bellingham, RL. The social ecology of health promotion: Implications for research and practice. Am J Health Prom 1996;10(4):247–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Labonte R. Health promotion and empowerment: Reflection on professional practice. Health Educ Q 1994;21(2):253–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wallerstein N. Powerlessness, empowerment, and health: Implications for health promotion programs. Am J Health Prom 1992;6(3):197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Freudenberg N, Eng E, Flay B, et al. Strengthening individual and community capacity to prevent disease and promote health: In search of relevant theories and principles. Health Educ Q 1995;22(3):290–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Levin LS, Ziglio E. Health promotion as an investment strategy: Considerations on theory and practice. Health Prom Int 1996;11(1):33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Minkler M. Challenges for health promotion in the 1990s: Social inequities, empowerment, negative consequences, and the common good. Am J Health Prom 1994;8(6):404–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nettleton S, Burrows R. If health promotion is everybody’s business what is the fate of the health promotion specialist? Sociology of Health and Illness 1997;19(1):23–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Robertson A, Minkler M. New health promotion movement: A critical examination. Health Educ Q 1994;21(3):295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Perreault R, Roy D, Renaud L. Promotion de la santé: un exercice de mise en application de la Charte d’Ottawa. Can J Public Health 1992;83(1):34–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Richard L, Potvin L, Kishchuk N, et al. Assessment of the integration of the ecological approach in health promotion programs. Am J Health Prom 1996;10(4):318–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Green LW, George MA, Daniel M, et al. Recherche participative et promotion de la santé: bilan et recommandations pour le développement de la recherche participative en promotion de la santé au Canada. Ottawa: Société royale du Canada, 1995.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Boutilier M, Mason R, Rootman I. Community action and reflective practice in health promotion research. Health Prom Int 1997;12(1):69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Colin C, Ouellet F, Boyer G, Martin C. Extrême pauvreté, maternité et santé. Montréal: Éditions Saint-Martin, 1992.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dean K, Hunter D. New directions for health: Towards a knowledge base for public health action. Soc Sci Med 1996;42(5):745–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    O’Neill M. The political dimension of health promotion work. Dans: Martin C, McQueen DV, Reading for a New Public Health. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1989;222–34.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cook HL, Coeppinger J, Brunk S, et al. A reexamination of community participation in health: Lessons from three community health projects. Family and Community Health 1988;11(2):1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Morgan, DL. Focus group as a qualitative research. Qualitative research methods series. Vol. 16. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1988.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Raphael D, Steinmetz B. Assessing the knowledge and skill needs of community-based health promoters. Health Prom Int 1995;10(4):305–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lucie Richard
    • 1
  • Éric R. Breton
    • 2
  • Pascale Lehoux
    • 3
  • Catherine Martin
    • 4
  • Denis Roy
    • 4
  1. 1.Faculté des sciences infirmièresUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.Faculté des sciences infirmières et GRISUniversité de MontréalCanada
  3. 3.Département d’administration de la santé et GRISUniversité de MontréalCanada
  4. 4.Direction de la santé publiqueRégie régionale de la santé et des services sociaux de Montréal-CentreCanada

Personalised recommendations