Question

QUESTION What are the social determinants of care and how is the provider-patient relationship influenced by patient cultural diversity?

Answer 1

Solution (a):-

For a dominant part of the historical backdrop of present day medicinal science, wellbeing was seen essentially as the nonattendance of ailment or deformity. It was a condition of being in which the majority of the frameworks that make up the individual were working "typically." A constant fight was started with sick wellbeing, and the weapons in this fight were better comprehension of the systems of illness and better comprehension of the structures and procedures of the human body. While this perspective accomplished numerous triumphs and some fantastic victories, its shortcomings have turned out to be increasingly evident.

Chief among these limitations is that although there have been staggering developments in medicines and technologies currently available, there has been an equally staggering cost for their use. Prescription drugs are the primary cost driver in the modern health system, and these costs have been growing exponentially in the past few decades, with no expectation that this trend will slow in the future. The development of increasingly complex and specialized treatment and diagnostic technologies results in the allocation of significant resources to technological marvels that will only affect a comparatively small portion of the population. With the development of each new wonder drug or miracle machine, the system reinforces the idea that for complete health, society needs the newest, the best, and the most advanced treatments. The belief that diseases must be eradicated at all costs results in a system that misallocates resources.

A second constraint of the therapeutic realist approach is additionally, incomprehensibly, one of its most noteworthy qualities. In managing people robotically—that is, as an accumulation of parts functioning as an exceptionally intricate machine—science and drug have made extraordinary walks in our comprehension of human science and the science of illness. By and by, be that as it may, these perspective outcomes in a piecemeal and symptomatic way to deal with infection and sick wellbeing. Indications are "settled" with a particular treatment or fix without, as a rule, managing the person in general or with the fundamental reasons for those side effects.

Another limitation is the reliance on, and belief in, the scientific method as the sole source of information and the directing force for innovation. By focusing only on those aspects or facets of individuals and diseases that can be measured, observed, or reproduced in a laboratory, a large blind spot emerges in which the medical model has nothing, or little, to contribute when considering the individual as anything other than a collection of parts. Treating individuals as human beings with minds, emotions, and spirits is not something this approach does well, and this has resulted in the denigration of systems or viewpoints that attempt to address these facets. This can be found in the way in which the medicinal and logical foundations have looked downward on medications and innovations not created by their techniques. For instance, in both Canada and the United States, customary Healers and Elders have been kept from giving functions and other recuperating intercessions—now and again through corrective and authoritative strategies—and subsequently, meds and medicines created throughout the hundreds of years were criticized as superstition and misrepresentation.

Recently, however, there is a growing recognition of what has been called a “population health” or a “health determinants” approach in which health is viewed as “a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”¹ In this view, nonmedical determinants of health are considered when analyzing the health of individuals and populations. In these models, other forces and factors in the lives and environments of individuals may have as much or more impact on their health than access to, or the provision of, medical services. These include determinants such as socioeconomic status, education level, geography, cultural identity, social inclusion and integration, community, and infrastructure. A noteworthy number of connections can be made between this methodology and what is viewed as a more Indigenous or Native American perspective on wellbeing. In endeavoring to be more all encompassing and far reaching in managing more parts of an individual or network's life, there are numerous manners by which this perspective converges with and supplements Indigenous perspectives and esteem framework