IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v48y1999i2p227-239.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Health promotion versus disease and care: failure to establish "blissful clarity" in British nurse education and practice

Author

Listed:
  • Smith, P.
  • Masterson, A.
  • Smith, S. Lloyd

Abstract

An evaluation which involved documentary analysis, observation and interviews with teachers, students and nurses in four educational institutions, revealed that the interpretation and implementation of a philosophy of health in nursing in the UK has been variable. A small but influential group of teachers saw health as the basis for the curriculum and the way forward for nursing. The new Project 2000 health-based curriculum led some participants to reassess their conception of nursing, but disease and care of the sick remained uppermost. Trained hospital nurses in particular continued to view nursing as primarily concerned with disease treatment. The care model associated with 'New Nursing', rooted in communication and interpersonal relationships, was also apparent particularly among pre- and post-registration students. Health was operationalised as both health education and health promotion ranging from individualised information giving and disease prevention to more participatory forms based on equity and empowerment. Participants' responses to the introduction of health in the curriculum were categorised in one of four ways: pessimism, partisanship, fanschen (to turn over) or marketisation. Their response depended on whether they viewed health as the central nursing philosophy rather than disease or care. On the basis of our findings we propose that these responses give rise to four policy choices for nurses at an individual and group level.

Suggested Citation

  • Smith, P. & Masterson, A. & Smith, S. Lloyd, 1999. "Health promotion versus disease and care: failure to establish "blissful clarity" in British nurse education and practice," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 227-239, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:48:y:1999:i:2:p:227-239
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(98)00318-9
    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.

    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:48:y:1999:i:2:p:227-239. 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.