Author: BK

I just read an hilarious article on how a guy survived 7 days without social media. Remember the days before Facebook and Twitter?

The article reminds me that social media has changed how we interact, including about health. Now we can ask family and friends, and even strangers, questions about health. We can get answers on how to cope or learn about a range of experiences that doctors are not privy to. Social media is another way for people to connect and share.

Social media can also be used by health organizations to provide information to the general public. For example, Health Canada uses Twitter to provide information about product recalls and safety information.

Being in the field of population and public health, the next question that arose in my head was: How can social media be used to reduce health inequities and improve population health? Upstream changes in policy and in social and economic conditions are needed rather than a focus on changing individual behaviour. It means targeting an audience of policy-makers and others who have the power to change social and economic conditions (and those who support them). It also means communicating an underlying or explicit message of equity and engagement (to work towards common goals) regardless of audience.

A lot of the dialogue on social media and health seems to relate to health care. It’s time to shift some of that dialogue to prevention.

CIHR just announced a call for submissions for a casebook of population and public health ethics. The casebook will help identify ethical dimensions of ‘doing’ population health.

The casebook has three objectives:

• Increase awareness and understanding of population and public health (PPH) ethics, and the value of ethical thinking in PPH research, policy, and practice;
• Highlight cases across PPH research, policy, and practice that feature different ethical issues and dilemmas; and
• Create a tool to support instruction, debate, and dialogue related to cases in population and public health ethics research, policy, and practice.

The deadline for submissions is September 30, 2011. The publication of the casebook is planned for Spring 2012.

CIHR has just launched a new funding opportunity for population health intervention research, signifying that the field of population health continues to gain ground. This is good news for those who are interested in promoting health and health equity.

The deadline for a Letter of Intent is September 15, 2011, while the full application is due on December 16, 2011.

Although the poorest group of Canadians are enjoying a minimally higher level of income, the income gap between the rich and the poor in Canada got wider. That was what the Conference Board of Canada concluded in its analysis of income inequity in a report titled How Canada Performs that was released on July 13, 2011.

Income gaps are associated with inequalities in health. Overall, the rich are healthier, while the poor are the least healthy. A widening income gap forecasts a potential widening of health inequalities. This poses a warning for public health to prepare for increasing inequalities.

First, public health can find what is working to reduce health inequities, and step it up.

Second, public health can try and find new ways to effectively reduce health inequities.

It is likely that what works will address multiple determinants of health, and will be done through multi-sectoral partnerships.

Lastly, and this is not specific to public health, I think our society needs to move away from viewing personal wealth as a main indicator of success in life. Many people feel ashamed about being poorer than other people, and this leads to a chain of events that eventually leads to poorer health. Personal wealth is only a means to a good life, and it is not the only means.

The answer is quite a bit, but the conversation hasn’t gotten very far yet.

For example, I didn’t meet anyone else from public health at last week’s David Suzuki Foundation Green Café to discuss gaps and opportunities for the green economy. I did meet people from businesses and labour, sustainability consultants, and recent grads (e.g., chemical engineering).

Also, most of the publications I found while working on a research proposal on climate justice were not from public health. The perspectives were economic and labour, social, and environmental.

As climate change continues to affect the entire planet, the green economy is projected to grow. It’s time for public health to have a bigger voice in the green economy. Climate is environment, and environment is one of the determinants of health. Public health will also need to address the health inequities that result because the already disadvantaged (e.g., the poor) will be more negatively affected by climate change.

But what can public health do?

First, public health can go where the conversations are already happening. There is still a lot of evolving dialogue on the green economy. There is room to learn and to seek opportunities for partnerships.

Second, public health can initiate new conversations. Take advantage of the momentum of the green economy.

Having a voice is just the beginning, but it has to start somewhere. Climate change affects us all. It’s too important for public health not to have a bigger voice.