SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, POLITICAL AND HEALTH IMPLICATIONS OF HEALTH AND

ILNESS BEHAVIOUR.

INTRODUCTION

Health and illness behavior has become a major area of interest,

as well as a significant challenge, when comes to nation

building. This comes about because, most factors that may affect

health and illness which eventually lead to help-seeking relates

to non-disease factors. In this paper, the implications of health

and illness behavior are briefly discussed.

Health.

According to Albrecht (2011) Health is a metaphor for well-

being. To be healthy means to be of sound mind and body; to be

integrated or whole. He further stated that health consist of

balance and of being centered World health organization (WHO,

2003) defined health as a state of complete physical, mental and

social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or

infirmity. According to Chew (2011) Health is defined as the

ability to adapt and self manage in the face of social, physical,

and emotional challenges. The Lancet (2009) health as the ability

to adapt to one’s environment. This includes adaptation to

animate and inanimate components of the environment, as well as

the physical, mental, and social dimensions of human life.

Generally, health refers to a holistic notion of individuals

well-being (Albercht, 2011).

Illness.

Illness is a feeling of not being normal and

healthy, illness may, in fact, be due to a disease.  However, it

may also be due to a feeling of psychological or spiritual

imbalance (O'Neil, 2006). The Association of Faculties of

Medicine of Canada (AFMC, 2014) to refer to the subjective sense

of feeling unwell; illness does not define a specific pathology,

but refers to a person’s subjective experience of it, such as

discomfort, tiredness, or general malaise. Illness is the

subjective experience consisting ". . . of an array of

discomforts and psychosocial dislocations resulting from

interaction of a person with the environment. The environmental

stimulus may be a disease, but frequently it is not (Barondess,

1979)

Health Behavior.

Health behavior any action taken by a person to maintain,

attain, or regain good health and to prevent illness, it reflects

a person's health beliefs. Some common health behaviors are

exercising regularly, eating a balanced diet, and obtaining

necessary inoculations. (Mosby, 2009). Health behavior is any

activity by a person believing himself to be healthy, for the

purpose of preventing disease or detecting it in an asymptomatic

stage (Larsen, 2014).

Illness Behavior.

Illness behavior is any activity undertaken by a person who

feels ill to the state of his health and to discover a suitable

remedy (Larsen, 2014). According to Mosby (2009) illness behavior

is the manner in which individuals monitor the structure and

functions of their own bodies, interpret symptoms, take remedial

action, and make use of health care facilities.

Implications Of Health And Illness Behavior to Nation Building

Social Implication of Health and Illness Behavior.

The Social implication of health and illness behavior,

examines the interaction between society and health. It

demonstrates how social life has an impact

on morbidity and mortality rate, and vice versa (Timmermans,

Stefan & Steven Haas, 2008). The social implication of health

and illness behavior discusses health and illness in relation to

social institutions such as family, employment, and school. The

social implication of health and illness behavior covers

sociological pathology (causes of disease and illness), reasons

for seeking particular types of medical aid, and patient

compliance or noncompliance with medical regimes (Conrad, 2008).

Health, or lack of health, was once merely attributed to

biological or natural conditions. Sociologists have demonstrated

that the spread of diseases is heavily influenced by the

socioeconomic status of individuals, ethnic traditions or

beliefs, and other cultural factors (White, 2002). There are

obvious differences in patterns of health and illness across

societies, and within particular society types. There has also

historically been a long-term decline in mortality

within industrialized societies, and on average, life-

expectancies are considerably

higher in developed, rather than developing or undeveloped,

societies (Gordon, 2009). He also stated that the continuous

changes in economy, therapy, technology and insurance can affect

the way individual communities view and respond to the medical

care available. Our life processes socially are determined

therefore low standard of living and persistence of absolute

poverty in the developing world are the key determinants of

health. (Healthknowledge, 2014).They further stated that Material

conditions in particular (which includes but is not solely

defined by income) are key social determinants of health. When

examining the relation of income to health, it is not only the

income of individuals that has to be taken into account, but also

the wealth of the community. If a country is poor, a small

increase in per capita income can make a big difference to health

Economic Implications of Health and Illness Behavior.

Economic implications of health and illness behavior can be

that of employment capacity, higher incomes, growing wealth and a

robust tax base that would continue to reinvest in a range of

social programs in nation or their lack / absence. Although the

effects of individuals' health status on their productivity and

earnings are readily observable and widely acknowledged, the

implications of health and illness behavior for economic

performance (at the macro level) and for the well-being of

individuals, families, and firms are more difficult to discern

and have been, until recently, rather neglected (Marcella Alsan,

David Bloom, David Canning, and Dean Jamison, 2006). Simply

stated: wealth is needed to achieve health, this therefore

determines the health and illness behavior as the availability of

economic power determines the behavior exhibited by individuals,

community and nation at large. Health is an important factor in

strengthening economies and reducing poverty, therefore the

economy of any nation is affected and largely dependent on the

health and illness behavior of its people and government. To

explain the apparent health-wealth relationship, traditional

economic thinking (for example, World Bank 1993a) has asserted

that income growth is a key factor underpinning improved health

and health behavior. Higher incomes lead to greater command over

many of the goods and services that promote health, such as

better nutrition, safe water, and access to quality health

services thereby improving positive health behavior. Higher

incomes also promote technical progress and dissemination of new

health technologies, which have been the major force behind

health improvements (Easterlin 1999). Consistent with this

perspective, policies prescribed by international financial

institutions for developing countries have focused on growth in

gross domestic product (GDP) to the neglect and even the

detriment of national health (Navarro 2004: 1322). The behavioral

channel highlights the fact that improvements in health and

longevity likely affect life-cycle behavior as individuals look

forward to longer, healthier lives (Bloom, canning, Mansfield,

and Moore, forthcoming 2007). Increases in longevity tend to

increase health ,foreign investors and executives tend to shun

areas where disease is rampant and where access to health care is

limited. Another mechanism by which health and health behavior

affects income is through its relationship to education. Bloom,

Canning, and Graham (2003) developed a model and empirically

investigated the effect of increasing longevity on the national

savings rate. They reported that a 10-year rise in life

expectancy is associated with about a 4-percentage point rise in

the savings rate. Rising longevity in developing countries could

therefore magnify the current generation’s incentive to save – a

development that may have sizable effects on domestic investment.

Although this saving and investment boom may only last for one

generation and is offset by the needs of the elderly once the

population ages, it can substantially boost economic growth rates

while it lasts.

There is longstanding literature demonstrating that

education increases productivity and wages. Healthier households

generally have more income for many of the reasons discussed

above. Their enhanced productivity allows them to earn higher

wages, they have fewer health-related expenses, and they are able

to attain desired family size at lower fertility rates. Healthy

families can therefore afford to spend more on their children's

education. Given the importance of education to income, it is

significant that health can serve as a complementary input to

education. In this regard, Finlay (2006) makes a significant

finding: that the effect of health on economic growth is stronger

in countries where education is weak, because a population that

relies more on unskilled labor is more dependent on good health.

Healthier children have enhanced cognitive function and higher

school attendance, allowing them to become better-educated,

higher-earning adults. Bleakley (2003) finds that de-worming of

children in the American South had an effect on their educational

achievements while in school.

Health also affects foreign direct investment (FDI). A high

burden of disease enervates the labor force. However, a healthy,

productive workforce will tend to attract FDI inflows. Research

has demonstrated that life expectancy exerts an independent

influence on FDI: every additional year of life expectancy

contributes to about a 9 per cent increase in gross FDI inflows

in low- and middle- income countries (Alsan, Bloom, and Canning

2004: 11).

Political implications of Health and Illness Behavior.

Very few scienti c studies have analyzed thefi

consequences of the political agenda of governing parties for the

health of populations. However it is time that the implicit, and

sometimes explicit but unstated politics within and surrounding

health were more widely acknowledged. Health, like almost all

other aspects of human life, is political in numerous ways

(Bambra, Fox and Scott-Samuel). Health they therefore said is

political in the following ways; Health is political because,

like any other resource or commodity under a neo-liberal economic

system, some social groups have more of it than others. Secondly,

health is political because its social determinants are amenable

to political interventions and are thereby dependent on political

action (or more usually, inaction). Thirdly, health is political

because the right to ‘a standard of living adequate for health

and well-being’ is, or should be, an aspect of citizenship and a

human right (United Nations, 1948).Ultimately, health is

political because power is exercised over it as part of a wider

economic, social and political system. Changing this system

requires political awareness and political struggle.

Evidence that the most powerful determinants of health and

health and illness behavior in modern populations are social,

economic and cultural comes from a wide range of sources and is

also, to some extent, acknowledged by governments and

international agencies. Yet inequalities in health continue,

within countries (on the basis of socio-economic class, gender or

ethnicity) and between them (in terms of wealth and resources).

How these inequalities in health are approached by society is

highly political. Underpinning these different approaches to

health inequalities are not only divergent views of what is

scientifically or economically possible, but also differing

political and ideological opinions about what is desirable ().

Many of the issues that dominate political life are key

determinants of our health and illness behavior. Similarly, many

of the major determinants of health and illness behavior lie

outside the health sector and therefore require non-health sector

policies to tackle them. Recent acknowledgements of the

importance of the social determinants of health are welcome but

fail to seriously address the underlying political determinants

of health and health behavior. Health policy, as currently

popularly conceptualized, is usually synonymous with policy

content. Certainly, it is relatively unusual to find discussions

of health policy that are not focused on the pros and cons of

particular courses of action in relation to particular political

parties. In reality, however, health policy is part of a broader

public policy agenda, whose practical aspects are inextricably

linked with power and politics. Given this, the reduction of

‘health policy’ to ‘the content of health policies’ diverts

attention from, and renders invisible the political nature of the

policy process. Policy is formulated within certain preset

political parameters, which define what is, and what is not,

possible or acceptable and this greatly affects the health and

illness behavior of the nation.

Health implications of Health and Illness Behavior.

Health and illness behavior is and can be rightly

said to be the basic foundation of maintaining good health. This

is because Acceptance of illness may affect the likelihood of

positive health-related behavior, through modification of

motivation to undertake particular actions (Janowski,, mail, Kusz,

Mroczek, Jedynak, 2013). For instance, patients with high acceptance

of illness may feel motivated to undertake or continue behavior

which helps them maintain the lowest possible burden of the

disease. However, high acceptance of the disease may be related

to satisfaction with the status quo and no need for further effort

may be perceived as required to improve one's situation.

Another dimension to this is that of personal

experience and information sharing. Online resources are now

established as a primary route to health information and support.

In the past, authoritative health information was based on

scientific information, often presented as evidence-based “facts

and figures,” rather than on patients’ experiences. When health

problems are commonly experienced (such as winter colds and flu

or headaches), people have their own embodied experience to draw

on when deciding whether and how to act (self-management,

decisions to consult, and so on) (Ziebland & Wyke, 2012).

However, people wondering whether a symptom is worth concern or

attention, facing a new diagnosis or health-related decision, or

living with a long-term condition and encountering new problems,

often feel that they need to know how others comprehend what they

are going through (Gabriel 2004). A study of parents of children

with a genetic condition (Schaffer, Kuczynski, & Skinner 2008)

found that the most trusted and valued source of information was

not doctors but the other parents in the online communities,

whose own extensive Internet searches were combined with a

personal stake. As cancer patient Dave de Bronkert (Aka e-Patient

Dave) put it, “Patients know what patients need to know ” and

are, therefore, the most under used resource in health- care

(see http://www.ted.com/conversations/4547/why_is_the_patient_

the_most_u.html). The 2010 Pew Internet national survey of 3,000

respondents in the United States reported the extent of peer-to-

peer help among people living with chronic conditions as its

“most striking” finding: One in four Internet users living with a

chronic condition, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, heart

or lung problems, or cancer, reported going online to find others

with similar health concerns (Fox 2011). Hearing or reading about

other patients’ experiences has the potential to affect decision

making, one’s sense of isolation or support, and adjustment to

the illness or health condition. This therefore implies that the

health experiences of others greatly affect the health and

illness behavior of any nation. This invariably affects the

health status of the nation.

SUMMARY

In summary, investments in health as illness behavior can be

considered integral to social, political, economic, and health

status development of nations. Improving the health and illness

behavior of nations is a powerful instrument to this end.

CONCLUSION

Conclusively, health is and has proven to be a worthwhile

investment. Improved health and illness behavior is a fundamental

ingredient in nation building; politically, economically,

socially or health wise. Therefore it is imperative to state that

health and illness behavior is an excellent tool in prevention of

disease, as well as the improvement of the political and economic

structure of any nation.

RECOMMENDATION

This paper examined how health and illness behavior can influence

nation building socially, economically, politically and health

wise. It is therefore recommended that socially, health awareness

be intensified as this affects the perception of health and

illness behavior in the community. Economically, it is clear that

where disease is most rampant, among poor populations within and

across countries, the resources necessary to improve health are

most scarce. Wealthy countries could contribute more financial

resources toward reducing the burden of disease in the developing

world low and middle-income countries could also do much more to

improve the transparency, accountability, and equity of national

health systems. Politically, I recommend that health promoting

policies should be made and should be considered essential to

nation building. These policies should be promoting in both

curative and preventive health as this would ensure easier and

better access to health care. Health wise, I recommend that

health promotion and education be employed as an integral and

essential part of patient treatment. Information concerning

patient illness should not be kept from patients to avoid

misinterpretation of disease process, as previous patients can

influence current patients, and society in how they respond to

issues pertaining health and illness.

References

Alsan, M., Bloom, D., Canning, D., & Jamison, D., (2006). The Consequences of Population Health for Economic

Performance. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/

Alsan, M., D.E. Bloom, and D. Canning (2004). “The Effect of Population Health on Foreign

Direct Investment,” NBER Working Paper 10596. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.

Barondess J. Disease and illness - A crucial distinction. American Journal of Medicine 1979;66:375-76.

Bleakley, H. (2003). “Disease and Development, Evidence from theAmerican South.” Journal

of the European Economic Association 1: 376–86.

Bloom D.E., D. Canning, and B. Graham. (2003). “Longevity andLife-cycle Savings.”

Scandinavian. Journal of Economics 105 (3): 319–338.

Bloom, David, E., David Canning, Rick Mansfield, and MichaelMoore (forthcoming 2007).

“Demographic Change, Savings, and International CapitalFlows: Theory and Evidence.”

Journal of Monetary Economics.

Bobonis, Gustavo J., Edward Miguel, and Charu Puri-Sharma(forthcoming 2006). "Anemia and

School Participation." Journal of Human Resources.

Brimacombe, G G. Health, Healthcare and Nation-Building: A Three-Dimensional Approach to Innovation in Canada. Healthcare Quarterly, 8(3) May 2005: 61-68.

doi:10.12927/hcq..17156

Clare Bambra1, Debbie Fox2 and Alex Scott-Samuel (2006). Medicine & Health, Health Promotion International: Towards apolitics of health.. Oxford Journals Volume 20, Issue 2 Pp. 187-193. http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org

Easterlin, R. (1999). "How beneficent is the market? A look at the modern history of mortality."

European Review of Economic History 3 (3): 257–294.

Finlay, Jocelyn (2006). "The Role of Health in Economic Development." Mimeo. Harvard

University Program on the Global Demography of Aging.

Fox, S. 2011. The Social Life of Health Information. Pew Internetand American Life. Available at http://www.pewInternet.org/Reports/ 2011/Social-Life-of-Health-Info/Summary-of- Findings.aspx (accessed March 28, 2012).

Gabriel,Y.2004. The Voice of Experience and the Voice of the Expert— Can They Speak to Each Other? In Narrative Research in Health and Illness, ed. B. Hurwitz, T. Greenhalgh, and V. Skultans, 168–86. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

HealthKnowledge (2014), section 7 :The Social pattern of health and illness http://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/p

Janowski, K., mail, D. K., Kusz, J., Mroczek, B., Jedynak, T. (2013). Health-Related Behavior, profile of health locus of control and acceptance of illness in patients suffering from

Chronic Somatic Diseases. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063920

Jones, T. (1990). The Panama Canal: A brief history. Available athttp://www.ilovelanguages.com/Tyler/nonfiction/pan2.html

(accessed 23 September 2006).

Miguel, E., and M. Kremer (2004). “Worms: Identifying Impacts on Education and Health in the Presence of Treatment Externalities.” Econometrica 72: 159–217.

Navarro,N., Muntaner, C., Borrell, C., Benach, J., Quiroga, A., Rodríguez-Sanz, M., Vergés, N., and Pasarín, M.I. (2006) Public Health: Politics and health outcomes. the lanancet; 367: pg. http://www.15by15.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/navarro-muntaner-et-al-2006- politics-and-health-outcomes.pdf

Navarro, V. (2004). “The World Situation and The WHO.” The Lancet

363 (9417): 1321–1323.

Pritchett, L., and L. Summers (1996). “Wealthier is Healthier.” The Journal of Human Resources 31(4): 841–868.

Psacharopoulos, George, and Harry Anthony Patrinos (2004). “Returns to investment in

education: a further update.” Education Economics 12 (2): 111–134.

Schaffer, R., K. Kuczynski, and D. Skinner. 2008. Producing Genetic Knowledge and Citizenship through the Internet:

Mothers, Pe- diatric Genetics, and Cybermedicine. Sociology of Health & Illness 30(1):145–49.

World Bank (1993a). World Development Report 1993: Investing in Health. Washington DC: World Bank.

Ziebland, S. & Wyke, S . (2012). Health and Illness in a Connected

World: How Might Sharing Experiences on the Internet Affect

People’s Health? The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 90, No. 2, (pp. 219–249.

Oxford :Wiley Periodicals Inc