IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v17y1983i20p1505-1512.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Health education and the primary care physician: The practitioner's perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Ford, Ann S.
  • Ford, W. Scott

Abstract

Considering the attention given to health education and promotion, it is surprising that little research assesses the opinions and behavioral inclinations of physicians. Survey data collected in Florida address this issue. Responses of primary care private practitioners reveal that whereas MDs endorse health promotion and acknowledge a link between positive lifestyle and health, their outlook regarding the potential of community-based health education remains skeptical. A majority blame ineffective health education on public apathy. Nonetheless, a sizeable minority are willing to either begin or increase their involvement in health education programs. Multivariate analyses suggest that active or receptive MDs view the public's lifestyle knowledge as inadequate and select the MD as the health professional most suited to assume primary responsibility for health education. Clues for identifying practitioners who might engage in further health education are provided by examining age, specialty, patient load and community size. For example, GPs/FPs might more readily endorse an educational program if it allows for one-to-one physician-patient interaction; emphasizing this instructional mode appears less important in securing the cooperation of their more specialized primary care counterparts. Further, MDs with the larger caseloads are more likely to view health education as the physician's responsibility.

Suggested Citation

  • Ford, Ann S. & Ford, W. Scott, 1983. "Health education and the primary care physician: The practitioner's perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 17(20), pages 1505-1512, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:17:y:1983:i:20:p:1505-1512
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(83)90095-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:17:y:1983:i:20:p:1505-1512. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.