Unit 6 Post

In the article titled Integrating Web 2.0 in Health Education Preparation and Practice, the authors describe the phenomena of Web 2.0, which includes the use of blogs, wikis, social-networking sites, and podcasts in the 21st century (p. 157). Essentially, I agree with the authors when they state that "Part of the reason for new media's appeal is interactivity and dialogue that may lead to clarity of thought and increased personal empowerment"
(p.160). In the present day, people have an immense level of personal empowerment due to the utilization of the internet. Nowadays, patients have the opportunity to educate themselves about a particular disease or medical treatment by using the internet to find relevant information. Also, patients have the ability to locate information regarding their symptoms or side effects of their medications by visiting certain websites such as WebMD, Drugstore.com, and PharmacyTimes.com. In other words, thanks to the internet, patients do not have to keep running to their physician’s office or visit their local pharmacist to receive answers on their basic health related questions. Moreover, the internet can serve as another mode of communication between two different individuals, groups, communities, and nations. People have the ability to join online groups or have access to individuals (across the globe) who can help them with their health or medical related issue. Especially through MySpace and Facebook, individuals can exchange advice and share their personal experience with others. For example, I have a friend who was diagnosed with a chronic autoimmune disease called lupus. For the longest time, this particular ailment caused my friend to feel completely isolated and alone. She strongly believed she was the only one in the entire world who became a victim of such a terrible disease. However, one day while using Facebook, she discovered an online group where individuals from all over the United States shared their experience with lupus. My friend immediately interacted and befriended these individuals through instant messaging and she felt comforted in knowing she was not the only one in this world who was suffering from lupus. On the other hand, one major problem with using the internet as a resource is that anyone can post a website about anything. Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether or not a particular website or online resource is credible. People have to be very careful in terms of what they read on the internet. As a future pharmacist, I would definitely like to incorporate new media at my workplace. Presumably, I see myself creating a genuine, easy access website that will provide my patients with general information regarding various diseases, medical treatments, health insurance plans, prescription drugs, and over the counter medications. Also, to make things more engaging and interactive for my patients, I plan to add various health-related quizzes, games, graphics, animations, and videos to my website. Furthermore, I see myself creating an online forum where individuals can share their personal experiences with others and provide words of encouragement or comfort.

Unit 5 Post

For the public service announcement project, my partner, Anh, and I decided to focus on heart disease since it is the leading cause of death in the United States. Before we started working on our project, we decided to brainstorm our ideas of what we needed to consider in order to create a marketing plan that would be inclusive of our PSA. In the article titled Social Marketing for Public Health, the authors explore the use of social marketing principles that aim to change behavior and improve public health (p. 110). We tried our best to follow the four marketing principles: product, price, place, and promotion. In my opinion, integrating all 4P’s was quite challenging because we did not want our PSA to appear like an advertisement or a commercial. Moving along, for our PSA, the product we were attempting to endorse was cholesterol screening. Also, in order to establish a place, we included a website that people could visit in order to find more information regarding heart disease and where they can receive their cholesterol screening. Our message is that obtaining a cholesterol screening every four years is imperative for adults who are 20 years and older because it can help lower their risk of heart disease. We anticipate that promoting a cholesterol screening as a way to alleviate the problem of heart disease will have an affect on the public and hopefully change the way individuals perceive their own health. Also, the only aspect of marketing principles that we did not emphasize in our PSA was price. Prices for cholesterol screenings can vary depending on what health insurance a patient has. Also, my partner and I thought about endorsing “free” cholesterol screenings, but we were not sure if doing so would put too much focus on our organization. Ultimately, my partner and I decided not to mention a specific price for cholesterol screenings because we thought it would become too commercial like, and we strictly wanted our PSA to focus on the issue. Furthermore, we believe that famous celebrities and experienced physicians have a major influence on persuading the public. Therefore, I decided to play the role of a famous actress and model, while Anh decided to play the role of an M.D. and the president of our fabricated organization called the Healthy Heart Foundation. Together, we attempted to convince our audience to take control of their health and to get their cholesterol screenings done immediately.

Unit 4 Post

In the article titled Social Marketing for Public Health, the authors explore the use of social marketing as a technique that can change behavior and improve public health (p.104). In my opinion, social marketing encompasses both positive and negative effects. In essence, social marketing includes the utilization of television, mass media, videos, the radio, and the internet. I believe when using social marketing to improve public health, it is important to modify attitudes and behaviors of people through providing information and raising awareness, not through the consumption of products. In other words, social marketing works best when there is no endorsement of a particular service or product. For example, when I was in elementary school, I recall watching a public service announcement that showed an old woman who placed her cigarette inside the hole of her neck and she breathed in the smoke. In that public service announcement, she states in her raspy voice: “They said smoking isn’t bad for you…but, they were wrong.” This particular public service announcement served as a campaign against smoking and tobacco use. I firmly believe it was effective in getting the message across and it did not endorse any products or services. It simply addressed the issue of smoking. Another example that comes to my mind is the “Live Above the Influence” message seen on television. This is another campaign against drug abuse. On the other hand, some pharmaceutical companies use social marketing as a way to get patients to use their products. For example, I have seen many commercials that advertise sleeping prescriptions such as Ambien, weight loss pills such as Xenical, or allergy medications such as Zyrtec. These pharmaceutical companies give the impression that lack of sleep, weight loss, or allergies are public health problems that can only be resolved if people consume their products. This is where social marketing can have a negative effect because the focus is not on a particular health issue, instead it is on the product itself. Generally speaking, when products or services are promoted, typically large amounts of money is involved. Instead of helping patients improve their health, pharmaceutical companies become greedy and simply desire to sell their products. Therefore, I do agree with the authors to some extent that social marketing is an effective technique that can be used to convince people to improve the quality of their health. However, when using social marketing tactics, it is important not to advocate the consumption of a particular product or service because then it just becomes a commercial advertisement that fails to raise awareness or provide significant information regarding a public health related issue.
Reference
Walsh et al. (1993). “Social Marketing in Public Health.” Health Affairs. P.104-119.

Unit 3 Post

In the article titled A New Generation on the Horizon, Collins and Tilson discuss the characteristics of different generational groups: Silent, Boomers, Gen-X, and Millennials. According to the authors, understanding the characteristics of these generational groups can help educators design better instructional techniques. Collins and Tilson mention that individuals who were born in 1982 and later, fall under the Millennial category (p. 174). I agree with the authors statement that for Millennials, “the use of technology in everything they do is expected” (p.173). Since I am a part of the Millennial group, I can honestly say that individuals from my generation are constantly exposed to advanced technology. For instance, Millennials have become accustomed to using the internet, ipods, and video games. Also, I agree with the statement that Millennials tend to “lean towards math and the sciences rather than the humanities, arts, and history” (p. 174). For my undergraduate career, I enrolled at UC Irvine. Interestingly, a large percentage of students at UCI typically graduate from the School of Biological Sciences, the School of Engineering, and the School of Physical Sciences. A smaller percentage of students actually graduate with a Bachelor’s Degree in Humanities or Art. On the other hand, I do not agree with the statement that Millennials “will be conformists who can get any task done if given the proper guidance, objectives, and feedback” (p. 174). Using the word “conformists” makes it seem that Millennials are merely a bunch of “followers,” who do not have minds of their own. I firmly believe that Millennials are not conformists. Instead, majority of Millennials are strong-minded individuals who have the potential to become promising leaders. Moreover, Collins and Tilson introduce different methods of instruction for Millennials. One particular method of instruction that interested me was the progression of analog learning to digital learning. Analog learning includes “TV, video, tapes, textbooks, course notes, face-to-face light projection, slides and overheads. Digital learning includes conventional computer-assisted instruction (drills, tutorials, games); hypermedia courses, digital forums, multiuse domains, and simulators” (p.175). When I was an undergraduate student, I remember all of my biology professors would incorporate analog learning. They would use overheads for their lectures, make students watch biology videos, as well as require students to take notes and read the textbooks. They barely implemented digital learning in their instruction. If I was an educator who taught biology, I would have used digital learning as a teaching strategy. For example, I would compel students to engage in biology related projects that require the use of the internet and Microsoft Office. Moreover, I would have students participate in amusing online biology games and activities that provide digital images and animations. In conclusion, in order to enhance a student’s learning ability, I truly believe educators should learn how to integrate both analog and digital learning in their instruction.
References
Collins D.E. & Tilson E.R. A New Generation on the Horizon. Teaching Techniques. (3) 2: pp. 172-176.

Unit 2 Post

In the article titled Understanding Health Literacy: An Expanded Model (Zarcadoolas et al, 2005), the authors explore the importance of improving health literacy in the United States by presenting a multi-dimensional model that consists of four imperative domains: fundamental, science, civic, and cultural literacy. Interestingly, the authors employ various examples from the 2001 anthrax threat in order to demonstrate the significance of each domain. In my opinion, the domain that carries more weight in increasing the health literacy of an individual or a population is fundamental literacy. According to Zarcadoolas et al. (2005), fundamental literacy “refers to the skills and strategies involved in reading, speaking, writing and interpreting numbers“ (p.197). The Zarcadoolas et al article states that during the anthrax threat, majority of the information from the US government derived from the Centers for Disease Control home page (p. 198). At the time, CDC presented a case definition for anthrax that presumably placed several readers in a state of confusion. For instance, CDC defined anthrax as a gram-positive, non-motile, spore-forming bacterial rod that has three major clinical forms: cutaneous, inhalation, and gastrointestinal (CDC, 2002). Although the case definition contains various details, most individuals will undeniably experience difficulty in understanding all of the terminology. Personally, the only reason why I was able to understand the definition was because when I was an undergraduate, I took several biology courses at UC Irvine and I received a Bachelor’s Degree in Biological Sciences. Yet, most people cannot decipher the anthrax definition presented by the CDC. Also, in the article, the authors state that “when a text is hard to read, readers will generally persist, rearranging the text to make some meaning, even if it is not the text’s intended meaning“ (p.198). I completely agree with this statement because in reality, people do not have the patience or the time to read sentences word for word. People often like to receive and interpret information as quickly as possible. How many of us have gone through our textbooks and skipped over words that we did not know the definition to or how many of us have skipped over sentences that were too hard to comprehend? I know I have done that numerous times. Basically, it takes effort to look up words in the dictionary and some people would rather “skip” and “guess” the meaning of a particular text. Unfortunately, at times, the act of “skipping and guessing” compels people to jump to the wrong conclusions and become misinformed (p. 198). For experimental purposes, I decided to put the importance of fundamental literacy to the test. Essentially, I decided to test two of my best friends: one of them graduated from UC Irvine with a Bachelor’s in Political Science, while the other one is currently majoring in business at UC Davis. I requested both of them to read the CDC’s description and definition of anthrax shown in the Zarcadoolas et al article. Interestingly, they both claimed they did not understand a lot of the terminology. In other words, they did not understand the concept of “clinical forms” and were perplexed by some of the vocabulary such as “gram-positive,” “spore-forming,” and “cutaneous.” At the end, they came to the simple conclusion that anthrax leads to death. This is the same conclusion that most people would come to (p. 198). It’s not that my friends are unintelligent and that is why they could not understand the definition for anthrax. Instead, the truth is that “complex language does not meet basic needs of most readers” (p.199). Overall, I firmly believe that in order to increase health literacy, everyone should take part in building their vocabulary, as well as enhancing their reading, writing, and speaking skills. Also, in order to help improve health literacy, a more shared or common language should be utilized when conveying vital messages to a large network of people (p. 199). Furthermore, I believe that difficult terms and complex sentence structures should be clearly defined or explained in a way that can be comprehended by the general public.
References
Zarcadoolas et.al. “Understanding Health Literacy: An Expanded Model.” Health Promotion International, March 2005, (20)2.

Unit 1 Post

In the article titled Social Capital and Health in a Digital Society, Sharif (2002) states that social capital is imperative because it brings a greater sense of community and results in better health outcomes. Also, according to Sharif, social capital has declined due to the advancement of technology such as the internet (p.31). In my opinion, it is true that in the present day, people spend a lot of their time using the internet, but I do not completely agree with Sharif in that technology has had a complete negative impact on social capital and people’s health. I believe technology including the internet can be used to increase social capital because it permits people to communicate with one another on a more global scale. The internet provides various services including e-mail, instant messaging, facebook, and creating websites, which have brought friends, families, and other individuals closer together. I came across another article titled The Influence of New Communication Technologies on Undergraduate Preferences for Social Capital Formation, Maintenance, and Expenditure. In this article, the authors state that people viewed instant messaging and e-mailing as a “medium for establishing new relationships, especially among those geographically distant” (Kennan, et al. 2008, p. 7). In other words, the internet can serve as another mode of communication between two different individuals, groups, communities, and nations. Also, I find it interesting when Sharif mentions how studies have shown that low social capital is related to higher levels of heart disease, cancer, infant mortality, and homicide (p.31). In my opinion, it is not that simple because other factors contribute to high levels of heart disease and cancer patients. For example, heart disease and cancer can be the result of people making poor diet choices or they suffer from lack of sleep, lack of exercise and stress. Also, homicide can be the result of people having personal issues or conflicts with one another. Therefore, you cannot completely blame technology and the internet as the primary reason why homicide and poor health exists in America. Besides, people can actually try to improve their health by getting information through the internet and they have the ability to join online groups or have access to individuals (across the globe) who can help them with their health or medical related issue. Also, Sharif claims that the internet has forced people to become more isolated and apathetic towards one another (p. 33). I do not find this to be completely true because numerous Americans use the internet as a way of socializing and maintaining contact with a larger network of people. In addition, I truly feel that people can use the internet as a way of seeking information and exchanging valuable advice. Also, according to Kennen et al. (2008), individuals can use the “vast informational internet resources in order to seek and plan ways of becoming more involved in offline communities” (p.4). In other words, the internet does not necessarily stop people from participating in community services. Instead Americans can utilize the internet as a way to find out more information on how to become a volunteer for healthcare organizations or how to become more involved in religious or political organizations. Furthermore, it is difficult for me to think of a specific type of technology that might have a negative influence on social capital and health. To me, the problem is not so much with technology itself. Instead it is the way people use and manipulate technology that determines whether it has a positive or negative affect on society. For example, people might say that guns and nuclear weapons have a negative affect on social capital because it isolates people from one another, it creates hostility between nations, and more importantly it increases mortality rates. However, others might believe in the old saying that “Guns do not kill people. People kill people” (Anonymous). Therefore, in my opinion, you cannot completely criticize technology for having a negative impact on society. Instead, it is more the type of actions and decisions that people make that will determine the outcome of social capital and health.
As for the Bardzell et al. article, the authors talk about the ADDIE Model, which was used to create a distance learning environment for a graduate course in pubic health. To me, the most interesting aspect of the article is how the team was able to design a course that combined the use of the internet, multimedia CD, and face-to-face interaction (p. 28-29). Most of the time students are used to attending class, listening to lectures, and taking notes. However, nowadays, students have become more open towards the idea of participating in a distance learning environment. I really like how the instructors were able to create a balance between using technology and employing face-to-face interaction, which goes to show that both methods can be used to enhance a person’s learning ability.
Overall, I believe that getting rid of technology such as the internet is not the answer for resolving the decline in social capital. Instead we must all see how technology and the internet can be viewed as a positive method for enhancing social capital. Maybe we can all try to create a balance between using technology and applying face-to-face interactions in order to help increase social capital.

References
Bardzell, S. et al. “A Model of Integrating Technology and Learning in Public Health Education.” pp. 26-32.
Kennen W. et al. “The Influence of New Communication Technologies on Undergraduate Preferences for Social Capital Formation, Maintenance, and Expenditure.” Public Relations Journal, Spring 2008, 2(2).
Sharif, B.A. “Social Capital and Health in a Digital Society.” The Health Educator, Spring 2007, 39(1).