Talk:Public health

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Public health article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article is a candidate for the Medicine Collaboration of the Week. Please visit that page to support or comment on the nomination.
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

    Contents

    [edit] Comment

    I saw the quote below and wanted to know more.

    "Early on in human civilization, it was recognized that polluted water and lack of proper waste disposal may spread vector-borne diseases."

    How early on? What is your source with page number included.

    ken 16:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

    [edit] Why

    I have been avoiding this article for long because I assumed there would be a lot of controversy here. Then I came here ready to deal with the squabbles, but nada. Why? Where are the health promotion vs. health education arguments? Where are the risk factors and the health behaviours? Or is it that this is the ultimate article? The wikipedia article where everyone is NPOV? I doubt it. Well, I'll go quarrel about what Homer Simpson said or did not say. --Ezeu 14:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

    [edit] I agree

    I cleaned it up a lot but have yet to add more thorough discussion. will do in a bit,. ThatPaige 03:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)ThatPaige

    [edit] Categories

    Should Category:Sewerage & Category:Water treatment be subcategories of Category:Public health?

    What about other technologies, such as refrigeration, which have an impact on public health? Should we create a category called Public health technologies? --Singkong2005 04:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Schools

    Why is only Johns Hopkins (correctly, Bloomberg School) listed on this page? What about Harvard, Michigan, Washington, North Carolina, Emory....

    I'd rather delete the link and replace it with a link to the Association of Schools of Public Health -- unless someone wants to make a list of schools and programs of public health. --D Wilbanks 03:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

    Good point. I deleted the link to JHBSPH, replaced it with a link to ASPH, and reordered the links a little with agencies at the top. Of course, you should feel free to do this sort of editing in the future! bikeable (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Splitting?

    Moved from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine:

    I think this article should be split into several other articles - it would be a good thing, I feel. Does anyone else agree with this proposal?? SunStar Net 13:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

    Why do you think that? And in what would you split? A quick look doesn't convince me that's the way to go...--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    If you define how you would split the article and provide a good reason I may support in the future. Currently, I'm not convinced the article needs to be split. It isn't very long and the material fits together reasonably well. Nephron  T|C 05:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] i don't agree

    The New Public Health is uncritically presented here. It is actually nothing 'new'. By focusing on community-based approach, it remains top-down. Similarly, with 'empowerment', it has not gone any far from victim blaming because the individuals are asked to take more care of themselves. Phong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.23.56.51 (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

    [edit] PH Education in Medical School

    I had added this article to Category:Subjects taught in medical school, which was then removed with the statement that PH was taught in Public Health school, and MDs don't receive training in it. I can say from personal experience that in my first year of medical school I had to take a 4 month course on introductory principles of public health. My collegues in other medical schools also had similar courses. I feel that it is suitably emphasised along with the other traditional courses of anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, and so on. Nanded 22:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

    hi Nanded -- I removed the category because, while fundamentals of PH can of course be taught in medical school, public health is primarily taught in schools of public health. The category seems to include medical topics, and in fact, most of the entries in it are medical specializations, so public health seems out of place. I guess I was thinking of it as a statement like, "Public health is taught in medical school", which is somewhat true -- some elements of PH are taught in medical school -- but doesn't give the whole picture, which is that there are schools specifically for public health. (It doesn't help that we don't have a category for "Subjects taught in schools of public health", so the only school-related category is medical school.) thanks. bikeable (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
    That's a fair assessment. However, if you take that stance, then you have to consider that none of the topics would appropriately belong in that catagory. One wouldn't go to Medical School to study biochemistry, as the standard medical school biochemistry course is basically an overview of the well defined biochemical pathways relevant to medicine. If you wanted to study biochemistry legitamately, you would go to grad school and do a PhD in biochemistry. Same for the other typical medical school courses like microbiology, pharmacology, anatomy, etc. I agree that that medical school doesn't teach public health in depth, but for the most part that statement would hold true for most subjects if you compare it to what the penultimate study in each of those fields are. As such, I would say that excluding it from the list of medical school course work isn't the way to go, bur rather maybe adding a clarification to the public health article about what medical school education of public health entails. Nanded 03:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    Thanks for the response. Yes, with my assessment the Category would be somewhat smaller; however, many of the articles in that category are medical specialities (e.g. Emergency medicine, Obstetrics, Cardiology). For others like Biochemistry it is often possible to get a degree in a medical school; for example, an MD/PhD program in biochemistry might be taught in a medical school. For public health, by constrast, virtually all coursework (except a brief introduction) would be taught in a school of public health. I think restricting the category to subjects in which you can get a degree (or specialization) in a medical school makes good sense; however, this amounts to a discussion about the category and not about the public health article. (Academic detailing and Medical humanities are somewhat odd exceptions.) Given all this, I continue to think that PH should not be in that category. thanks for your comments. bikeable (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    Quick follow-up -- I note that the category now includes this Talk page but not the public health article -- and I can't figure out why. How weird! any ideas? bikeable (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    As I see it, you're arguing that public health isn't taught in complete depth in medical school, which is completely accurate. However, I don't think that's the point of catagorizing it as a topic which is taught as part of medical school carriculum. When I updated that catagory (which had all of 6 topics in it when I began), I just went down the list of subjects I and my collegues had in medical school and added them. I basically asked "Was (blank) taught in medical school?". Biochemistry, yes. Anatomy, yes. Art history, no. Public health, yes. Taking your argument further, would you say that mathematics isn't on the list of subjects taught in High School, because its true study is done in college?Nanded 23:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
    I have several issues with this. First is one of balance; there is no category for "subjects taught in schools of public health" (nor do I think it important that there be one, else I would create it), so including public health in the category "subjects taught in medical school" misleadingly gives the impression that public health is only or primarily taught in medical school. I think the bigger issue is with the latter category, which is poorly defined (not your fault!). As I said before, most of the article in it are medical specialties or things you can get an advanced degree in at a medical school. Neither of those encompasses public health. I think the correct solution is to define the category better; personally, I would rename it and edit it appropriately. "Subjects taught" is simply too broad. For example, my SPH teaches classes in writing and in anatomy, but to place a category called "subjects taught in schools of public health" on the Writing page, or on the Anatomy page, would be highly misleading -- particularly if there were no other "Subjects taught in..." categories on those pages. Again, I think a clearer definition of the category is the best solution. bikeable (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


    [edit] I'd like to put this paragraph in, but need guidance

    I'd like to follow this paragraph, with the second one, but I don't know how, and would like people's comments before I do.--Raymm 01:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

    This is in article During the 20th century, the dramatic increase in average life span is widely credited to public health achievements, such as vaccination programs and control of infectious diseases, better safety policy such as motor-vehicle and worker safety, improved family planning, floridation of drinking water, and progams designed to decrease chronic disease such as heart disease and stroke.

    I propose adding this: (but need guidance) An alternative hypothisis is proposed by Leonard A. Sagan in The Health of Nations: True Causes of Sickness and Well Being (http://www.rainbowbody.net/Finalempire/FEchap13.htm) "Finally, there is another explanation for the decline in deaths from infectious diseases, namely, an improvement in human resistance." "So what has caused the increase in health according to Sagan? His studies point to the increased strength of the nuclear family...The relatively small group of people in industrial societies, who have statistically better health and longevity also have social advantages well above the norm, Sagan finds. This is the group who has a firm social foundation as infants, who have avenues of advancement and who have, because of social privilege or unusual families, been enabled to gain optimism and self esteem. (from http://www.rainbowbody.net/Finalempire/FEchap13.htm) (Sorry, I don't know how to do footnotes, perhaps someone could give me a clue)

    I removed this paragraph; sorry. I have never heard this theory before, and I do not think the website you cite is a very solid source, and so I'm not even sure I would trust their summary of the research. It's not clear to me whether the research is speaking about a genetic or a social support improvement; certainly the latter effect is well known, and there is clear improvement in morbidity and mortality with social networks, but the cultural comparison seems wildly off and I have never heard this suggested as a reason for improved health. I glanced through The Impact of the Family on Health: The Decade in Review, Ross, CE (1990) in Journal of Marriage and the Family and found references to Sagan and a lot of discussion of health consequences of family but no suggestion that this is responsible for improved 20th century health in place of vaccination. Without more detailed citations, I do not think this is useful. Incidentally, a quick way to do footnotes is just to use <ref>footnote detail</ref>. bikeable (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

    I think he is saying deaths declined because the nuclear family`s lot improved.--Raymm 00:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

    Does Leonard A. Sagan get no respect, then?

    How do you do question marks?--Raymm 00:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

    I guess that, until I see references to this theory in other work, I don't think it belongs in this paragraph. I haven't looked at his book yet, so we have only a secondhand report from rainbowbody.net of what he actually said. If you can find further references to it, preferably in the PH literature, we can add it back. Incidentally, I have no idea why question marks don't work -- are you perhaps cutting and pasting text from another program? bikeable (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    Ok, that would be beyond me, I'll leave it for someone else that knows more about PH. Question mark problem was from my computer.--Raymm 03:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] European Public Health

    I removed the couple of sentences added on this topic, although I left it in the "see also" list. Except for the MPH program at Maastricht, I don't see a reason to think that European Public Health is a field different than public health more generally. If more citations can be added, this could be put back. (I made the same comment over at European Public Health.) bikeable (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Too American

    Yet another Americanised article. Ianguy 04:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

    →Because the contributors can only draw upon their own experiences and research? Assuming that the editors who "Americanised" it are themselves from the United States, doesn't it logically follow that the bulk of their knowledge would be about the American public health system? If you want this to be a more global article, then by all means share your worldly experiences with those who haven't had that benefit and improve the article, don't complain about those who contribute.

    [edit] career in this field .

    I want to what kind of career is there in Health Science in terms of Nepal ?

    I have no way to back this up, but I imagine that your best bet would be to get training as a public health specialist elsewhere and then bring that expertise to Nepal, unless of course Nepal has its own program/school of public health...

    [edit] See Also - too long?

    Isn't the "See Also" list in this article getting too long to be useful? Since there is a "Public Health" Category wouldn't it be more effective to reference most of those articles there? I can't see a reason to duplicate everything in both locations. Pzavon 21:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Should this article contain a description of publicly financed and publicly managed heath care delivery systems?

    In the United Kingdom we have the concept of private medicine where one can seek treatment and pay for it out of pocket or in whole or in part from some form of medical insurance. The alternative to using that system is to use the public health care system, the National Health Service. I now live in Finland where a similar alternative applies, although the public health care system (clinics and hospitals) is run by the local municipalities. Both systems are largley publicly funded. There are many such systems around the world.

    I therefore created an article called Public medicine to describe such systems. I called the article public medicine as shorter way of saying public health care systems. However, another editor has suggested that this information should reside in the Public health article and has redirected the article here, implying that I was creating a fork. I am reluctant to add this type of content here because I doubt that editors here would regard publicly delivered health care as being the same as public health. In the UK we also use the term public health, but it tends to be used to discuss very general matters of public health rather than as a generic name for the public delivered health care system that is the NHS. In everyday speech we Brits we will say "are you going public or private?" to mean "are you going to get that care from the public NHS system or will you use the private medical system?". Hence, to my ear, Public medicine is a good place holder.

    I would welcome the views of other editors here. Please let me know where you think a general description of publicly funded and publicly managed health care delivery systems should reside in Wikipedia. If you think the content should be in this article please say so. If you think elsewhere please say so, and under what title you think this information should be collated. --Tom (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

    I agree with you. A separate article about publiclly funded health care delivery systems is appropriate. "Public Health" is about the health of the community, or large groups, about such things as sewage collection and treatment, epidemic detection and control, food service sanitation, etc., not about systems for delivery of individual health care - although the adequacy of such systems could effect "the public health." For what it may be worth in this discussion, I am based in the US. Pzavon (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

    Are there no other opinions out there? I am grateful to Pzavon for the contribution above but I was rather hoping for more views than this. I was offended by the accusation that Public medicine would be a WP:fork, so I really would like the opinion of some other editors. There is already some information at socialized medicine but the very title of that article is (a) POV because of the way the term is used in the US (b) not used outside of the USA and (c) not in any case exclusively covering public delivered health care (as the term socialized medicine is used to describe Canada's single payer health care system which is publicly financed but privately run. Hence the need to find a better location for such material. Hence my suggestion of collating at public medicine. I see that some US Medical departments at universitites in the US include the title "Public Medicine". Can anyone enlighten me as to what this refers to. Is that basicially the same as "Public Health" in the US? (i.e. the action of government in the field of health?). If that is so I can see how the argument could be made that the actions of government in meeting the health needs of the polulation should be collated under Public Health. I would say that in Britain for example as in Finland there is a seamless divide between Public Health and the delivery system that produces it.--Tom (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

    I believe the Publicly-funded health care article covers much of what you are discussing, the merge tag for Socialized medicine seems correct. I would change the Public medicine redirect to point to Publicly-funded health care. There are also several other articles listed at the bottom of the existing articles in their respective see also sections. If you are looking for a description of what Public Health refers to in the us I would take a look at the Master of Public Health article for description of the topic in how it relates to an educational setting. I would tend to say the same applies to the US as it does to England and possibly other English speaking countries. Public Health is a fairly broad general term that refers to more than just the delivery of health care services. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for the comment. I am aware of the merge suggestion to Publicly-funded health care. I will think again about this suggestion (which I previously have opposed). There were mixed views on the matter and I was myself hostile precisely because certain WP editors (mostly US based) seem to think that there is a big difference between public funded (but privately delivered) health care and publicly funded (but publicly delivered) health care. I think the differences are worth examining because the claims made are often (as I have discovered) based on the use of highly selective data, sensational tabloid newspaper reports, out-of-date, and in some cases premised on false logic or at worst pure fantasy. They are examined to a limited extent at Socialized medicine but I am unhappy about the title. It is just a derogatory term used mainly in the USA for something else, athough that "something else" is somewhat amoebic. --Tom (talk) 17:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)