I'm not sure I agree with the central premise here, because the whole point of SDoH is that active interventions are usually very expensive
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @StuckonSW and
I mean, we could theoretically provide every overweight person with a personal trainer and a healthy diet, but practically we can't
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
..Not sure what you mean here. I interpreted this article to focus on community resilience and not just deficits. Could help reduce cost.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I saw the focus as being that we can change our health through active intervention - if we support and manage disease
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @StuckonSW and
The example was identifying resilient traits in people who have been abused and providing support to amplify these traits
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
More a semantic argument, The term
#SDoH does not always support that, usually deficit focused.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'd say the main issue with 'influencers' is that it doesn't sound as robust, meaning harder to argue for in terms of policy
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
How about for grants call it determinants but when you have boots on the ground doing the work call it "influences" & look for strengths? :)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Sounds good in theory but I'd guess diluting the message will just confuse people
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
My take home was just to separate "determinants" from "destinty"... that while we argue
#SDoH we must work with communities toward solutions1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I'd agree, but I feel like changing the language just detracts from the entire idea of #SDoH, which is as much political as it is practical
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.