Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique logoLink to Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique
. 1999 Mar 1;90(2):99–103. [Article in French] doi: 10.1007/BF03404110

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

Lucie Richard 17,✉, Éric R Breton 27, Pascale Lehoux 37, Catherine Martin 47, Denis Roy 47
PMCID: PMC6980204  PMID: 10349215

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.

Footnotes

Cette étude a été réalisée grâce à une subvention à l’établissement de jeune chercheur accordée par le FRSQ (# 960153) à la première auteure et grâce à l’appui de la Direction de la santé publique Montréal-Centre. Lucie Richard est chercheure-boursière CRM (#H4-33565-AP007366). Pascale Lehoux est chercheure-boursière PNRDS (#6605-5359-48).

Bibliographie

  • 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. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Frenk J. The new public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 1993;14:469–90. doi: 10.1146/annurev.pu.14.050193.002345. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kickbusch I. Health promotion: A global perspective. Can J Public Health. 1986;77:321–26. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 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.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.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. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Anctil H, Martin C. Santé Société, collection promotion de la santé. 1988. La promotion de la santé: une perspective, une pratique; p. 1. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Green LW, Kreuter MW. Health Promotion Planning: An Educational and Environmental Approach. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company; 1991. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Macdonald G, Bunton R. Health promotion: Discipline or disciplines? In: Bunton R, Macdonald G, editors. Health Promotion: Disciplines and Diversity. Londres: Routledge; 1991. pp. 6–19. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.O’Neill M, Cardinal L. Health Promotion in Québec: Did it ever catch on? In: Pederson A, O’Neill M, Rootman I, editors. Health Promotion in Canada: Provincial, National and International Perspectives. Toronto: W.B. Saunders; 1994. pp. 262–83. [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 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.
  • 13.Green LW, Richard L, Potvin L. Ecological foundation of health promotion. Am J Health Prom. 1996;10(4):270–81. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-10.4.270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Q. 1988;15(4):351–77. doi: 10.1177/109019818801500401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 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. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-10.4.247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Labonte R. Health promotion and empowerment: Reflection on professional practice. Health Educ Q. 1994;21(2):253–68. doi: 10.1177/109019819402100209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Wallerstein N. Powerlessness, empowerment, and health: Implications for health promotion programs. Am J Health Prom. 1992;6(3):197–205. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-6.3.197. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 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. doi: 10.1177/109019819402200304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Levin LS, Ziglio E. Health promotion as an investment strategy: Considerations on theory and practice. Health Prom Int. 1996;11(1):33–39. doi: 10.1093/heapro/11.1.33. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 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. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-8.6.403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 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. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.00039. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Robertson A, Minkler M. New health promotion movement: A critical examination. Health Educ Q. 1994;21(3):295–312. doi: 10.1177/109019819402100303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 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. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 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. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-10.4.318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 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.Boutilier M, Mason R, Rootman I. Community action and reflective practice in health promotion research. Health Prom Int. 1997;12(1):69–78. doi: 10.1093/heapro/12.1.69. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Colin C, Ouellet F, Boyer G, Martin C. Extrême pauvreté, maternité et santé. Montréal: Éditions Saint-Martin; 1992. [Google Scholar]
  • 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. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(95)00394-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.O’Neill M. The political dimension of health promotion work. In: Martin C, McQueen DV, editors. Reading for a New Public Health. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press; 1989. pp. 222–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 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. doi: 10.1097/00003727-198808000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Morgan, DL. Focus group as a qualitative research. Qualitative research methods series. Vol. 16. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, 1988.
  • 32.Raphael D, Steinmetz B. Assessing the knowledge and skill needs of community-based health promoters. Health Prom Int. 1995;10(4):305–15. doi: 10.1093/heapro/10.4.305. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Canadian Journal of Public Health = Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES