Family Assessment Part II

Family Assessment Part II

Social determinants of health (SDOH) are the circumstances in which people live and work that have a potential influence on a family’s health. Thus it is essential to analyze the significance of family health assessment and ways for implementing it. This essay offers insights into SDOH responsible for health, age-appropriate screenings for family members, Bronfenbrenner’s model, and steps for realizing a family-centred health promotion.

SDOH Affecting the Family’s Health Status

Mike’s family has an effective SDOH that drives it to achieve better health outcomes by influencing family members to make decisions such as having healthy eating habits, coping and developing positive perceptions. Concerning eating habits, the family eats a healthy balanced diet and eats at the right time. The practice ensures that family members get the nutrients their bodies require to be healthy. The family has coping abilities that help them alleviate stress. With the coping mechanism, the family can be more robust because stress is associated with negative impacts on health such as headaches,

hypertension, depression, and anxiety (Weber, Lorenz & Hemmings, 2019). Mike and Carol agree that positive perceptions have positive impacts on health. Research by the Stanford Graduate School of Business reveals that individuals who perceive themselves are healthy are more likely to live longer than those who do not. However, SDOH relating to time impediments may be detrimental to the family’s health. Due to the tight working and school schedules, the family lacks a defined sleeping schedule and does not exercise during weekdays. However, on weekends and holidays, the family goes to the gym, utilizes a swimming pool, and goes for hiking trips.

Screenings for the Family

Based on the data obtained from the family assessment, one would recommend age-appropriate screenings for each member of the family. The two elementary-aged children can be evaluated based on educational facilities while the adults, Mike and Carol may be assessed regarding the family history and occupational grounds. A health care practitioner should determine the children’s school environment to identify potential risk for the children’s health. The assessment will involve determining if precautionary measures are adhered to as the children play (Rodriguez, Srivastava & Landau, 2018). The reason is that some of the sports played at school could result in injuries such as broken limbs especially where care is not taken. Carol can be screened based on her family history because she reports that her parents have diabetes and hypertension, given that genetic inheritance is a risk factor for both diseases. The screening can be done using laboratory tests so that Carol can be sure of her fate and eliminate the fear she lives with. Both Mike and Carol can be evaluated on their occupations to identify if they experience stress as a result of their work. Most of the employees who have tight working schedules suffer employee burnout that negative impacts on their health.

The Health Model

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model assists in creating a plan of action by considering the dynamics of interactions of the environment. The model would be the most appropriate for the family in question because it benefits both the children and adults. According to the model, individuals encounter five environments throughout their lifespan (Eriksson, Ghazinour, & Hammarström, 2018). The first is the microsystem. It involves children’s interaction with direct contact in their lives, including parents, school and friends. The second is the ecosystem, and it involves interactions between the microsystem and a person’s life. The ecosystem is the third, and it portrays a setting in which one is not an active participant, but it stills affects them while the macro system is the fourth. It involves a child’s interaction with society. The fifth is the chronosystem which shows the influence of constancy and change in the child’s life. The model would be sufficient for Mike’s family because it would aid the children’s psychological and social development as well as that of the parents. The reason is that Mike and Carol would also conform to the identified pattern presented by the model. For example, while the microsystem for the two children would include peers, school, and friends that of Caro and Mike would comprise of the workplace, colleagues, and neighbours.

family-centred Health Promotion

There are two steps for achieving a family-centred health promotion using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model. The steps can be communicated using health communication strategies such as the use of appropriate language, the use of digital tools and cultural competency. The first step is to create more outdoor activities for the family to enable the children to increase their associations with their microsystem. With outdoor activities, children get involved in physical activities such as play leading to a better life. Moreover, it aids in the reduction of video gaming that is addictive to elementary-aged children. This step can be communicated to the children using language that takes into consideration the level of health literacy of the target population (Kokorelias, Gignac, Naglie, & Cameron, 2019). The reason is that elementary-aged children might not understand the need to exercise yet. Step two is to reduce stress in Mike and Carol through by increasing their interactions of the microsystem. Through interactions, these adults will be better placed to socialize. Socializing is associated with decreased levels of stress. To communicate this step, one would need to comprehend conventional concepts related to the settings and culture prevalent for this family to avoid talking in a manner that contradicts with the family’s cultural beliefs. Digital tools such as social media platforms can also be used to describe the second step because most people these days are more receptive to social media than to other channels.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Eriksson, M., Ghazinour, M., & Hammarström, A. (2018). Different uses of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory in public mental health research: what is their value for guiding public mental health policy and practice? Social Theory & Health, 16(4), 414–433. doi: 10.1057/s41285-018-0065-6

Kokorelias, K. M., Gignac, M. A. M., Naglie, G., & Cameron, J. I. (2019). Towards a universal model of family-centred care: a scoping review. BMC Health Services Research, 19(1). doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4394-5

Rodriguez, E., Srivastava, A., & Landau, M. (2018). Increasing screening follow-up for vulnerable children: A partnership with school nurses. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(8), 1572. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15081572

Weber, S., Lorenz, C., & Hemmings, N. (2019). Improving stress and positive mental health at work via an app-based intervention: A large-scale multi-centre randomized control trial. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02745