![]() Utilizing a “sociological perspective,” which emphasized the “diffusion of health information” to the masses, scholars largely focused on the educational aspect to these campaigns (Thompson, 2014). The inception of health communication as a discipline began on two separate, yet interwoven tracks: research in public health “education” and physician-patient interactions.īeginning in earnest in the 1940’s and 1950’s, scholars in the field that would eventually manifest into health communication studied early iterations of modern health campaigns. To that end, Judy Segal (2008) remarked that “the most salient narrative of medical history is the narrative of progress.” In practice, however, health communication is significantly more complicated than the simple narrative that is often told.Īs an academic discipline, health communication’s history is more recent and significantly less complex than humankind’s relationship with health. The timeline of human development can certainly be placed upon a corresponding timeline of health-related discoveries and advances in medicine. History of Health CommunicationĪrguably, humankind has communicated about health since the very beginning. ![]() If the desired outcome is a change in behavior, Schiavo (2013) cited Clift and Freimuth (1995) in their comparison between health communication and health education as “an approach which attempts to change a set of behaviors in a large-scale target audience regarding a specific problem in a predefined period of time.”įor students new to health communication research and for those exploring various master’s in health communication programs, a thorough and encompassing definition that is widely accepted is: “the use of strategies to communicate information about health and to influence individuals and communities in health decision making” (Thompson, 2014). In other words, who is the targeted audience and what is the desired outcome? If the desired outcome is to “inform and influence” individuals and the community, then a good definition might come from the American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI), which define health communication as the “study and use of communication strategies to inform and influence individual decisions that enhance health.” While most definitions of health communication will highlight the communicative process that occurs in “advocating for and improving individual or public health outcomes,” the difference often appears in the overarching goals of the practitioner. Given the interdisciplinary nature and the emphasis on the practical and pragmatic in health communication, a universally accepted definition remains elusive. ![]() Governments, health-care providers, and industry operatives increasingly rely upon research conducted by health communication experts to improve lives, disseminate new information and technology, and solidify healthcare’s standing in economies around the world. Outside the realm of academia, health communication’s presence, prestige, and importance continues to grow as well. Thompson (2014) highlighted the importance of health communication to human society, writing that “research that affects how long people live, their level of health during their lifespan, how they cope with health problems, and how communication affects their health brings with it a level of human relevance that is not available in all areas of study.” In the Encyclopedia of Health Communication, Teresa L. Perhaps more so than other areas of study within Communication, the tangible, real-world consequences of health communication are readily available and immediately felt. A combination of breakthroughs in science and technology set against the backdrop of rapid population growth and increased literacy rates corresponded to the rapid development – and acceptance – of health communication as a discipline in Communication Studies. ![]() The field of health communication is vast, always growing, and increasingly important.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |