Available Balance
Health Estate for people to live in
May 20, 2017
0
TMPDOODLE1495267972279

Economic inequality is the difference found in various measures of economic well-being among individuals in a group, among groups in a population, or among countries. Economic inequality sometimes refers to income inequality, wealth inequality, or the wealth gap. Economists generally focus on economic disparity in three metrics: wealth, income, and consumption.[1] The issue of economic inequality is relevant to notions of equity, equality of outcome, and equality of opportunity.[2]

Economic inequality varies between societies, historical periods, economic structures and systems. The term can refer to cross-sectional distribution of income or wealth at any particular period, or to changes of income and wealth over longer periods of time.[3] There are various numerical indices for measuring economic inequality. A widely used index is the Gini coefficient, but there are also many other methods.

Some studies say economic inequality is a social problem,[4] for example too much inequality can be destructive,[5][6] because it might hinder long term growth.[7][8][9] However, too much income equality is also destructive since it decreases the incentive for productivity and the desire to take-on risks and create wealth.[10][11][12][13]

Differences in national income equality around the world as measured by the national Gini coefficient. The Gini coefficient is a number between 0 and 1, where 0 corresponds with perfect equality (where everyone has the same income) and 1 corresponds with absolute inequality (where one person has all the income, and everyone else has zero income).
Empirical measurements of inequality Edit

The first set of income distribution statistics for the United States covering the period from (1913–48) was published in 1952 by Simon Kuznets, Shares of Upper Income Groups in Income and Savings. It relied on US federal income tax returns and Kuznets’s own estimates of US national income, National Income: A Summary of Findings (1946).[14] Others who contributed to development of accurate income distribution statistics during the early 20th century were John Whitefield Kendrick in the United States, Arthur Bowley and Colin Clark in the UK, and L. Dugé de Bernonville in France.[15]

Economists generally consider three metrics of economic dispersion: wealth, income, and consumption.[1] A skilled professional may have low wealth and low income as student, low wealth and high earnings in the beginning of the career, and high wealth and low earnings after the career. People’s preferences determine whether they consume earnings immediately or defer consumption to the future. The distinction is also important at the level of economy:

There are economies with high income inequality and relatively low wealth inequality (such as Japan and Italy).[1]
There are economies with relatively low income inequality and high wealth inequality (such as Switzerland and Denmark).[1]
There are different ways to measure income inequality and wealth inequality. Different choices lead to different results. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) provides data on the following eight types of income inequality:
Dispersion of hourly wages among full-time (or full-time equivalent) workers
Wage dispersion among workers – E.g. annual wages, including wages from part-time work or work during only part of the year.
Individual earnings inequality among all workers – Includes the self-employed.
Individual earnings inequality among the entire working-age population – Includes those who are inactive, e.g. students, unemployed, early pensioners, etc.
Household earnings inequality – Includes the earnings of all household members.
Household market income inequality – Includes incomes from capital, savings and private transfers.
Household disposable income inequality – Includes public cash transfers received and direct taxes paid.
Household adjusted disposable income inequality – Includes publicly provided services.
There are many challenges in comparing data between economies, or in a single economy in different years. Examples of challenges include:

Data can be based on joint taxation of couples (e.g. France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal and Switzerland) or individual taxation (e.g. Australia, Canada, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Spain, the UK).[16]
The tax authorities generally only collect information on income that is potentially taxable.[16]
The precise definition of gross income varies from country to country. There are differences when it comes to inclusion of pension entitlements and other savings, and benefits such as employer provided health insurance.[16]
Differences when it comes under-declaration of income and/or wealth in tax filings.[16]
A special event like an exit from business may lead to a very high income in one year, but much lower income in other years of the person’s lifetime.[16]
Much income and wealth in non-western countries is obtained or held extra-legally through black market and underground activities such as unregistered businesses, informal property ownership arrangements, etc.[
A 2011 study “Divided we Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising” by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) investigated economic inequality in OECD countries, including the following factors:[18]

Changes in the structure of households can play an important role. Single-headed households in OECD countries have risen from an average of 15% in the late 1980s to 20% in the mid-2000s, resulting in higher inequality.
Assortative mating refers to the phenomenon of people marrying people with similar background, for example doctors marrying doctors rather than nurses. OECD found out that 40% of couples where both partners work belonged to the same or neighbouring earnings deciles compared with 33% some 20 years before.[16]
In the bottom percentiles number of hours worked has decreased.[16]
The main reason for increasing inequality seems to be the difference between the demand for and supply of skills.[16]
Income inequality in OECD countries is at its highest level for the past half century. The ratio between the bottom 10% and the top 10% has increased from 1:7, to 1:9 in 25 years.[16]
There are tentative signs of a possible convergence of inequality levels towards a common and higher average level across OECD countries.[16]
With very few exceptions (France, Japan, and Spain), the wages of the 10% best-paid workers have risen relative to those of the 10% lowest paid.[16]
A 2011 OECD study investigated economic inequality in Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia and South Africa. It concluded that key sources of inequality in these countries include “a large, persistent informal sector, widespread regional divides (e.g. urban-rural), gaps in access to education, and barriers to employment and career progression for women.”[16]

A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000. The three richest people in the world possess more financial assets than the lowest 48 nations combined.[19] The combined wealth of the “10 million dollar millionaires” grew to nearly $41 trillion in 2008.[20] A January 2014 report by Oxfam claims that the 85 wealthiest individuals in the world have a combined wealth equal to that of the bottom 50% of the world’s population, or about 3.5 billion people.[21][22][23][24][25] According to a Los Angeles Times analysis of the report, the wealthiest 1% owns 46% of the world’s wealth; the 85 richest people, a small part of the wealthiest 1%, own about 0.7% of the human population’s wealth, which is the same as the bottom half of the population.[26] More recently, in January 2015, Oxfam reported that the wealthiest 1 percent will own more than half of the global wealth by 2016.[27][28] An October 2014 study by Credit Suisse also claims that the top 1% now own nearly half of the world’s wealth and that the accelerating disparity could trigger a recession.[29] In October 2015, Credit Suisse published a study which shows global inequality continues to increase, and that half of the world’s wealth is now in the hands of those in the top percentile, whose assets each exceed $759,900.[30] A 2016 report by Oxfam claims that the 62 wealthiest individuals own as much wealth as the poorer half of the global population combined.[31] Oxfam’s claims have however been questioned on the basis of the methodology used: by using net wealth (adding up assets and subtracting debts), the Oxfam report, for instance, finds that there are more poor people in the United States and Western Europe than in China (due to a greater tendency to take on debts).[32][33][34][unreliable source?][35][36][unreliable source?] Anthony Shorrocks, the lead author of the Credit Suisse report which is one of the sources of Oxfam’s data, considers the criticism about debt to be a “silly argument” and “a non-issue . . . a diversion.”[33]
According to PolitiFact the top 400 richest Americans “have more wealth than half of all Americans combined.”[38][39][40][41] According to the New York Times on July 22, 2014, the “richest 1 percent in the United States now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent”.[25] Inherited wealth may help explain why many Americans who have become rich may have had a “substantial head start”.[42][43] In September 2012, according to the Institute for Policy Studies, “over 60 percent” of the Forbes richest 400 Americans “grew up in substantial privilege”.[44]

The existing data and estimates suggest a large increase in international (and more generally inter-macroregional) component between 1820 and 1960. It might have slightly decreased since that time at the expense of increasing inequality within countries.[45]

The United Nations Development Programme in 2014 asserted that greater investments in social security, jobs and laws that protect vulnerable populations are necessary to prevent widening income inequality….[46]

There is a significant difference in the measured wealth distribution and the public’s understanding of wealth distribution. Michael Norton of the Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of the Department of Psychology at Duke University found this to be true in their research, done in 2011. The actual wealth going to the top quintile in 2011 was around 84% where as the average amount of wealth that the general public estimated to go to the top quintile was around 58%.[47]

Two researchers claim that global income inequality is decreasing, due to strong economic growth in developing countries.[48] However, the OECD reported in 2015 that income inequality is higher than it has ever been within OECD member nations and is at increased levels in many emerging economies.[49] According to a June 2015 report by the International Monetary Fund:
Widening income inequality is the defining challenge of our time. In advanced economies, the gap between the rich and poor is at its highest level in decades. Inequality trends have been more mixed in emerging markets and developing countries (EMDCs), with some countries experiencing declining inequality, but pervasive inequities in access to education, health care, and finance remain.
Countries with a left-leaning legislature have lower levels of inequality.[240][241] Many factors constrain economic inequality – they may be divided into two classes: government sponsored, and market driven. The relative merits and effectiveness of each approach is a subject of debate.

Typical government initiatives to reduce economic inequality include:

Public education: increasing the supply of skilled labor and reducing income inequality due to education differentials.[242]
Progressive taxation: the rich are taxed proportionally more than the poor, reducing the amount of income inequality in society if the change in taxation does not cause changes in income.[243]
Market forces outside of government intervention that can reduce economic inequality include:

propensity to spend: with rising wealth & income, a person may spend more. In an extreme example, if one person owned everything, they would immediately need to hire people to maintain their properties, thus reducing the wealth concentration.[244]
Research shows that since 1300, the only periods with significant declines in wealth inequality in Europe were the Black Death and the two World Wars.[245] Historian Walter Scheidel posits that, since the stone age, only extreme violence, catastrophes and upheaval in the form of total war, Communist revolution, pestilence and state collapse have significantly reduced inequality.[246][247] He has stated that “only all-out thermonuclear war might fundamentally reset the existing distribution of resources” and that “peaceful policy reform may well prove unequal to the growing challenges ahead.”[
A 2011 OECD study makes a number of suggestions to its member countries, including:[16]

Well-targeted income-support policies.
Facilitate and encourage access to employment.
Better job-related training and education for the low-skilled (on-the-job training) would help to boost their productivity potential and future earnings.
Better access to formal education.
Progressive taxation reduces absolute income inequality when the higher rates on higher-income individuals are paid and not evaded, and transfer payments and social safety nets result in progressive government spending.[229][230][231] Wage ratio legislation has also been proposed as a means of reducing income inequality. The OECD asserts that public spending is vital in reducing the ever-expanding wealth gap.[232]

The economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty recommend much higher top marginal tax rates on the wealthy, up to 50 percent, or 70 percent or even 90 percent.[233] Ralph Nader, Jeffrey Sachs, the United Front Against Austerity, among others, call for a financial transactions tax (also known as the Robin Hood tax) to bolster the social safety net and the public sector.[234][235][236]

The Economist wrote in December 2013: “A minimum wage, providing it is not set too high, could thus boost pay with no ill effects on jobs….America’s federal minimum wage, at 38% of median income, is one of the rich world’s lowest. Some studies find no harm to employment from federal of state minimum wages, others see a small one, but none finds any serious damage.”[237]

General limitations on and taxation of rent-seeking are popular across the political spectrum.[238]

Public policy responses addressing causes and effects of income inequality in the US include: progressive tax incidence adjustments, strengthening social safety net provisions such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, welfare, the food stamp program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, organizing community interest groups, increasing and reforming higher education subsidies, increasing infrastructure spending, and placing limits on and taxing rent-seeking.

Are aware of population of health?????
May 20, 2017
0
TMPDOODLE1495244644331

Population health has been defined as”the health outcomes of a group of individuals, including the distribution of such outcomes within the group”.[1] It is an approach to health that aims to improve the health of an entire human population. This concept does not refer to animal or plant populations. It has been described as consisting of three components. These are “health outcomes, patterns of health determinants, and policies and interventions”.[2] A priority considered important in achieving the aim of Population Health is to reduce health inequities or disparities among different population groups due to, among other factors, the social determinants of health, SDOH. The SDOH include all the factors: social, environmental, cultural and physical the different populations are born into, grow up and function with throughout their lifetimes which potentially have a measurable impact on the health of human populations.[3] The Population Health concept represents a change in the focus from the individual-level, characteristic of most mainstream medicine. It also seeks to complement the classic efforts of public health agencies by addressing a broader range of factors shown to impact the health of different populations. The World Health Organization’s Commission on Social Determinants of Health, reported in 2008, that the SDOH factors were responsible for the bulk of diseases and injuries and these were the major causes of health inequities in all countries.[4] In the US, SDOH were estimated to account for 70% of avoidable mortality.[5]

From a population health perspective, health has been defined not simply as a state free from disease but as “the capacity of people to adapt to, respond to, or control life’s challenges and changes”.[6] The World Health Organization (WHO) defined health in its broader sense in 1946 as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
Healthy People 2020 is a web site sponsored by the US Department of Health and Human Services, representing the cumulative effort of 34 years of interest by the Surgeon General’s office and others. It identifies 42 topics considered social determinants of health and approximately 1200 specific goals considered to improve population health. It provides links to the current research available for selected topics and identifies and supports the need for community involvement considered essential to address these problems realistically.[
Recently, human role has been encouraged by the influence of population growth there has been increasing interest from epidemiologists on the subject of economic inequality and its relation to the health of populations. There is a very robust correlation between socioeconomic status and health. This correlation suggests that it is not only the poor who tend to be sick when everyone else is healthy, heart disease, ulcers, type 2 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, certain types of cancer, and premature aging. Despite the reality of the SES Gradient, there is debate as to its cause. A number of researchers (A. Leigh, C. Jencks, A. Clarkwest—see also Russell Sage working papers) see a definite link between economic status and mortality due to the greater economic resources of the better-off, but they find little correlation due to social status differences.

Other researchers such as Richard G. Wilkinson, J. Lynch, and G.A. Kaplan have found that socioeconomic status strongly affects health even when controlling for economic resources and access to health care. Most famous for linking social status with health are the Whitehall studies—a series of studies conducted on civil servants in London. The studies found that, despite the fact that all civil servants in England have the same access to health care, there was a strong correlation between social status and health. The studies found that this relationship stayed strong even when controlling for health-affecting habits such as exercise, smoking and drinking. Furthermore, it has been noted that no amount of medical attention will help decrease the likelihood of someone getting type 1 diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis—yet both are more common among populations with lower socioeconomic status. Lastly, it has been found that amongst the wealthiest quarter of countries on earth (a set stretching from Luxembourg to Slovakia) there is no relation between a country’s wealth and general population health[1]—suggesting that past a certain level, absolute levels of wealth have little impact on population health, but relative levels within a country do. The concept of psychosocial stress attempts to explain how psychosocial phenomenon such as status and social stratification can lead to the many diseases associated with the SES gradient. Higher levels of economic inequality tend to intensify social hierarchies and generally degrades the quality of social relations—leading to greater levels of stress and stress related diseases. Richard Wilkinson found this to be true not only for the poorest members of society, but also for the wealthiest. Economic inequality is bad for everyone’s health. Inequality does not only affect the health of human populations. David H. Abbott at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center found that among many primate species, less egalitarian social structures correlated with higher levels of stress hormones among socially subordinate individuals. Research by Robert Sapolsky of Stanford University provides similar findings.
There is well-documented variation in health outcomes and health care utilization & costs by geographic variation in the U.S., down to the level of Hospital Referral Regions (defined as a regional health care market, which may cross state boundaries, of which there are 306 in the U.S.).[10][11] There is ongoing debate as to the relative contributions of race, gender, poverty, education level and place to these variations. The Office of Epidemiology of the Maternal and Child Health Bureau recommends using an analytic approach (Fixed Effects or hybrid Fixed Effects) to research on health disparities to reduce the confounding effects of neighborhood (geographic) variables on the outcomes.[
Family planning programs (including contraceptives, sexuality education, and promotion of safe sex) play a major role in population health. Family planning is one of the most highly cost-effective interventions in medicine.[13] Family planning saves lives and money by reducing unintended pregnancy and the transmission of sexually transmitted infections.[13]

For example, the United States Agency for International Development lists as benefits of its international family planning program:[14]

“Protecting the health of women by reducing high-risk pregnancies”
“Protecting the health of children by allowing sufficient time between pregnancies”
“Fighting HIV/AIDS through providing information, counseling, and access to male and female condoms”
“Reducing abortions”
“Supporting women’s rights and opportunities for education, employment, and full participation in society”
“Protecting the environment by stabilizing population growth”
One method to improve population health is population health management (PHM), which has been defined as “the technical field of endeavor which utilizes a variety of individual, organizational and cultural interventions to help improve the morbidity patterns (i.e., the illness and injury burden) and the health care use behavior of defined populations”.[15] PHM is distinguished from disease management by including more chronic conditions and diseases, by use of “a single point of contact and coordination”, and by “predictive modeling across multiple clinical conditions”.[16] PHM is considered broader than disease management in that it also includes “intensive care management for individuals at the highest level of risk” and “personal health management… for those at lower levels of predicted health risk”.[17] Many PHM-related articles are published in Population Health Management, the official journal of DMAA: The Care Continuum Alliance.[18]

The following road map has been suggested for helping healthcare organizations navigate the path toward implementing effective population health management:[19]

Establish precise patient registries
Determine patient-provider attribution
Define precise numerators in the patient registries
Monitor and measure clinical and cost metrics
Adhere to basic clinical practice guidelines
Engage in risk-management outreach
Acquire external data
Communicate with patients
Educate patients and engage with them
Establish and adhere to complex clinical practice guidelines
Coordinate effectively between care team and patient
Track specific outcomes.
Healthcare reform is driving change to traditional hospital reimbursement models. Prior to the introduction of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), hospitals were reimbursed based on the volume of procedures through fee-for-service models. Under the PPACA, reimbursement models are shifting from volume to value. New reimbursement models are built around pay for performance, a value-based reimbursement approach, which places financial incentives around patient outcomes and has drastically changed the way US hospitals must conduct business to remain financially viable.[20] In addition to focusing on improving patient experience of care and reducing costs, hospitals must also focus on improving the health of populations (IHI Triple Aim[21]).

As participation in value-based reimbursement models such as accountable care organizations (ACOs) increases, these initiatives will help drive population health.[22] Within the ACO model, hospitals have to meet specific quality benchmarks, focus on prevention, and carefully manage patients with chronic diseases.[23] Providers get paid more for keeping their patients healthy and out of the hospital.[23] Studies have shown that inpatient admission rates have dropped over the past ten years in communities that were early adopters of the ACO model and implemented population health measures to treat “less sick” patients in the outpatient setting.[24] A study conducted in the Chicago area showed a decline in inpatient utilization rates across all age groups, which was an average of a 5% overall drop in inpatient admissions.[25]

Hospitals are finding it financially advantageous to focus on population health management and keeping people in the community well.[26] The goal of population health management is to improve patient outcomes and increase health capital. Other goals include preventing disease, closing care gaps, and cost savings for providers.[27] In the last few years, more effort has been directed towards developing telehealth services, community-based clinics in areas with high proportion of residents using the emergency department as primary care, and patient care coordinator roles to coordinate healthcare services across the care continuum.[26]

Health can be considered a capital good; health capital is part of human capital as defined by the Grossman model.[28] Health can be considered both an investment good and consumption good.[29] Factors such as obesity and smoking have negative effects on health capital, while education, wage rate, and age may also impact health capital.[29] When people are healthier through preventative care, they have the potential to live a longer and healthier life, work more and participate in the economy, and produce more based on the work done. These factors all have the potential to increase earnings. Some states, like New York, have implemented statewide initiatives to address population health. In New York state there are 11 such programs. One example is the Mohawk Valley Population Health Improvement Program (http://www.mvphip.org/). These programs work to address the needs of the people in their region, as well as assist their local community based organizations and social services to gather data, address health disparities, and explore evidence-based interventions that will ultimately lead to better health for everyone.

What do you know about health????
May 20, 2017
0
TMPDOODLE1495244133139

Health is the general condition of a person’s mind and body, usually indicating the state of being free from illness, injury or pain.[1] The World Health Organization (WHO) has defined health as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”[2] Identified by the 2012 World Development Report as one of two key human capital endowments, health can influence an individual’s ability to reach his or her full potential in society.[3] Yet while gender equality has made the most progress in areas such as education and labor force participation, health inequality between men and women continues to plague many societies today. While both males and females face health disparities, girls and women experience a majority of health disparities. This comes from the fact that many cultural ideologies and practices have structured society in a way whereby women are more vulnerable to abuse and mistreatment, making them more prone to illnesses and early death.[4] Women are also restricted from receiving many opportunities, such as education and paid labor, that can help improve their accessibility to better health care resources.
Health disparity has been defined by the World Health Organization as the differences in health care received by different groups of people that are not only unnecessary and avoidable but also unfair and unjust.[5] The existence of health disparity implies that health equity does not exist in many parts of the world. Equity in health refers to the situation whereby every individual has a fair opportunity to attain their full health potential, and that no one should be denied from achieving this potential.[5] Overall, the term “health disparities,” or “health inequalities,” is widely understood as the differences in health between people who are situated at different positions in a socioeconomic hierarchy.
Predominantly female-bias Edit
The social structures of many of these places perpetuate the marginalization and oppression of women in the form of cultural norms and legal codes. As a result of this unequal social order, women are usually relegated into positions where they are not only more vulnerable to suffering from health problems, but also less able to have access and control over healthcare resources than men. For example, women living in areas with a patriarchal system are often less likely to receive tertiary education or to be employed in the paid labor market due to gender discrimination.[4] As a result, female life expectancy at birth and nutritional well-being, and immunity against communicable and non-communicable diseases, are often lower than those of men.[7][8]

Disparities against males Edit
While a majority of the global health gender disparities is weighted against women, there are situations in which men tend to fare poorer. One such instance is armed conflicts, where men are often the immediate victims. A study of conflicts in 13 countries from 1955 to 2002 found that 81% of all violent war deaths were male.[3] Apart from armed conflicts, areas with high incidence of violence, such as regions controlled by drug cartels, also see men experiencing higher mortality rates. This stems from social beliefs that associate ideals of masculinity with aggressive, confrontational behavior.[9] Lastly, sudden and drastic changes in economic environments and the loss of social safety nets, in particular social subsidies and food stamps, have also been linked to higher levels of alcohol consumption and psychological stress among men, leading to a spike in male mortality rates. This is because such situations often makes it harder for men to provide for their family, a task that has been long regarded as the “essence of masculinity.”[10]

In developed countries, overall health outcomes (such as life expectancy) are worse for men than women.
At birth, boys outnumber girls with the ratio of 105 or 106 male to 100 female children.[8] However, after conception, biology favors women. Research has shown that if men and women received similar nutrition, medical attention, and general health care, women would live longer than men.[11] This is because women, on a whole, are more resistant to diseases and less prone to debilitating genetic conditions.[12] However, despite medical and scientific research that shows that when given the same care as males, females tend to have better survival rates than males, the ratio of women to men in developing regions such as South Asia, West Asia, and China can be as low as 0.94, or even lower. This deviation from the natural male to female sex ratio has been described by Indian philosopher and economist Amartya Sen as the “missing women” phenomenon.[8] According to the 2012 World Development Report, the number of missing women is estimated to be about 1.5 million women per year, with a majority of the women missing in India and China.[3]

Female mortality Edit
In many developing regions, women experience high levels of mortality.[13] Many of these deaths result from maternal mortality and HIV/AIDS infection. Although only 1,900 maternal deaths were recorded in high-income nations in 2008, India and Sub-Saharan Africa experienced a combined total of 266,000 deaths from pregnancy-related causes. In Somalia and Chad, one in every 14 women die from causes related to child birth.[3] In addition, the HIV/AIDS epidemic also contributes significantly to female mortality. The case is especially true for Sub-Saharan Africa, where women account for 60% of all adult HIV infections.[14]

Health outcome Edit
Women tend to have poorer health outcomes than men for several reasons ranging from sustaining greater risk to diseases to experiencing higher mortality rates. In the Population Studies Center Research Report by Rachel Snow that compares the disability-adjusted life years (DALY) of both male and females, the global DALYs lost to females for sexually transmitted diseases such as gonorrhea and chlamydia are more than ten times greater than those of the males.[15] Moreover, the female DALYs to male DALYs ratio for malnutrition-related diseases such as Iron-Deficiency Anemia are often close to 1.5, suggesting that poor nutrition impacts women at a much higher level than men.[15] Additionally, in terms of mental illnesses, women are also two to three times more likely than men to be diagnosed with depression.[16] With regards to suicidal rates, up to 80% of those who committed suicide or attempted suicide in Iran are women.[17]

In developed countries with more social and legal gender equality, overall health outcomes can disfavor men. For example, in the United States, as of 2001, men’s life expectancy is 5 years lower than women’s (down from 1 year in 1920), and men die at higher rates from all top 10 causes of death, especially heart disease and stroke.[18] Men die from suicide more frequently, though women more frequently have suicidal thoughts and the suicide attempt rate is the same for men and women (see Gender differences in suicide). Men may suffer from undiagnosed depression more frequently, due to gender differences in the expression of emotion.[19] American men are more likely to consume alcohol, smoke, engage in risky behaviors, and defer medical care.
Incidence of melanoma has strong gender-related differences which vary by age.[21]

Access to healthcare Edit
Women tend to have poorer access to health care resources than men. In certain regions of Africa, many women often lack access to malaria treatment as well as access to resources that could protect them against Anopheles mosquitoes during pregnancy. As a result of this, pregnant women who are residing in areas with low levels of malaria transmission are still placed at two to three times higher risk than men in terms of contracting a severe malaria infection.[22] These disparities in access to healthcare are often compounded by cultural norms and expectations imposed on women. For example, certain societies forbid women from leaving their homes unaccompanied by a male relative, making it harder for women to receive healthcare services and resources when they need it most.[4]

Gender factors, such as women’s status and empowerment (i.e., in education, employment, intimate partner relationships, and reproductive health), are linked with women’s capacity to access and use maternal health services, a critical component of maternal health.[23] Still, family planning is typically viewed as the responsibility of women, with programs targeting women and overlooking the role of men—even though men’s dominance in decision making, including contraceptive use, has significant implications for family planning [24] and access to reproductive health services.[25][26]

In order to promote equity in access to reproductive health care, health programs and services should conduct analyses to identify gender inequalities and barriers to health, and determine the programmatic implications. The analyses will help inform decisions about how to design, implement, and scale up health programs that meet the differential needs of women and men.[
Cultural norms and practices Edit
Cultural norms and practices are two of the main reasons why gender disparities in health exist and continue to persist. These cultural norms and practices often influence the roles and behaviors that men and women adopt in society. It is these gender differences between men and women, which are regarded and valued differently, that give rise to gender inequalities as they work to systematically empower one group and oppress the other. Both gender differences and gender inequalities can lead to disparities in health outcomes and access to health care. Some of the examples provided by the World Health Organization of how cultural norms can result in gender disparities in health include a woman’s inability to travel alone, which can prevent them from receiving the necessary health care that they need.[28] Another societal standard is a woman’s inability to insist on condom use by her spouse or sex partners, leading to a higher risk of contracting HIV.[28]

Son preference Edit
One of the better documented cultural norms that augment gender disparities in health is the preference for sons.[29][30] In India, for instance, the 2001 census recorded only 93 girls per 100 boys. This is a sharp decline from 1961, when the number of girls per 100 boys was nearly 98.[4] In certain parts of India, such as Kangra and Rohtak the number of girls for every 100 boys can be as low as in the 70s.[31] Additionally, low female to male numbers have also been recorded in other Asian countries – most notably in China where, according to a survey in 2005, only 84 girls were born for every 100 boys. Although this was a slight increase from 81 during 2001–2004, it is still much lower than the 93 girls per 100 boys in the late 1980s.[4] The increasing number of unborn girls in the late 20th century has been attributed to technological advances that made pre-birth sex determination, also known as prenatal sex discernment, such as the ultrasound test more affordable and accessible to a wider population. This allowed parents who prefer a son to determine the sex of their unborn child during the early stages of pregnancy. By having early identification of their unborn child’s sex, parents could practice sex-selective abortion, where they would abort the fetus if it was not the preferred sex, which in most cases is that of the female.[3]

Additionally, the culture of son preference also extends beyond birth in the form of preferential treatment of boys.[32] This preferential care can be manifested in many ways, such as through differential provision of food resources, attention, and medical care. Data from household surveys over the past 20 years has indicated that the female disadvantage has persisted in India and may have even worsened in some other countries such as Nepal and Pakistan.[3]

Female genital mutilation Edit
Prevalence of female genital mutilation in Africa, Yemen and Iraq
Harmful cultural practices such as female genital mutilation (FGM) also cause girls and women to face health risks. Millions of females are estimated to have undergone FGM, which involves partial or total removal of the external female genitalia for non-medical reasons. It is estimated that 92.5 million females over 10 years of age in Africa are living with the consequences of FGM. Of these, 12.5 million are girls between 10 and 14 years of age. Each year, about three million girls in Africa are subjected to FGM.[28]

Often performed by traditional practitioners using unsterile techniques and devices, FGM can have both immediate and late complications.[33][34] These include excessive bleeding, urinary tract infections, wound infection, and in the case of unsterile and reused instruments, hepatitis and HIV.[33] In the long run, scars and keloids can form, which can obstruct and damage the urinary and genital tracts. According to a 2005 UNICEF report on FGM, it is unknown how many girls and women die from the procedure because of poor record.
Violence and abuse Edit
National Institute of Health: Among more than 1,400 adult females, childhood sexual abuse was associated with increased likelihood of drug dependence, alcohol dependence, and psychiatric disorders
Violence against women is a widespread global occurrence with serious public health implications. This is a result of social and gender bias.[37] Many societies in developing nations function on a patriarchal framework, where women are often viewed as a form of property and as socially inferior to men. This unequal standing in the social hierarchy has led women to be physically, emotionally, and sexually abused by men, both as children and adults. These abuses usually constitute some form of violence. Although children of both sexes do suffer from physical maltreatment, sexual abuse, and other forms of exploitation and violence, studies have indicated that young girls are far more likely than boys to experience sexual abuse. In a 2004 study on child abuse, 25.3% of all girls surveyed experienced some form of sexual abuse, a percentage that is three times higher than that of boys (8.7%).[38]

Such violence against women, especially sexual abuse, is increasingly being documented in areas experiencing armed conflicts. Presently, women and girls bear the brunt of social turmoil worldwide, making up an estimated 65% of the millions who are displaced and affected.[39] Some of these places which are facing such problems include Rwanda, Kosovo, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.[39] This comes as a result of both the general instability around the region, as well as a tactic of warfare to intimidate enemies. Often being placed in emergency and refugee settings, girls and women alike are highly vulnerable to abuse and exploitation by military combatants, security forces, and members of rival communities.[38]

The sexual violence and abuse of both young and adult women have both short and long-term consequences, contributing significantly to a myriad of health issues into adulthood. These range from debilitating physical injuries, reproductive health issues, substance abuse, and psychological trauma. Examples of the above categories include depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, alcohol and drug use and dependence, sexually transmitted diseases, and suicide attempts.[39]

Abused women often have higher rates of unplanned and problematic pregnancies, abortions, neonatal and infant health issues, sexually transmitted infections (including HIV), and mental disorders (such as depression, anxiety disorders, sleep disorders and eating disorders) as compared to their non-abused peers.[3] During peacetime, most violence against women is perpetrated by either male individuals whom them know or intimate male partners. An eleven-country study conducted by WHO between 2000 and 2003 found that, depending on the country, between 15% and 71% of women have experienced physical or sexual violence by a husband or partner in their lifetime, and 4% to 54% within the previous year.[40] Partner violence may also be fatal. Studies from Australia, Canada, Israel, South Africa and the United States show that between 40% and 70% of female murders were carried out by intimate partners.[
Other forms of violence against women include sexual harassment and abuse by authority figures (such as teachers, police officers or employers), trafficking for forced labour or sex, and traditional practices such as forced child marriages and dowry-related violence. At its most extreme, violence against women can result in female infanticide and violent death. Despite the size of the problem, many women do not report their experience of abuse and do not seek help. As a result, violence against women remains a hidden problem with great human and health care costs.[37]

Poverty Edit
Poverty is another factor that facilitates the continual existence of gender disparities in health.[3] Poverty often works in tandem with various cultural norms to indirectly impact women’s health. While many communities and households are not opposed to helping women attain better health through education, better nutrition, and financial stability, poverty often act as a form of barrier against gender equity in health for women. Oftentimes, due to financial constraints and limited capital, only a select few are able to receive opportunities, like education and employment, that might help them attain better health outcomes. However, cultural norms would often prioritized men in receiving these opportunities. This prioritization of males stems from the societal perception that the potential returns to both the household and the community is higher for men than women.[42]

Healthcare system Edit
The World Health Organization defines health systems as “all the activities whose primary purpose is to promote, restore, or maintain health”.[43] However, factors outside of healthcare systems can influence the impact healthcare systems have on the health of different demographics within a population. This is because healthcare systems are known to be influenced by social, cultural and economic frameworks. As a result, health systems are regarded as not only “producers of health and health care”, but also as “purveyors of a wider set of societal norms and values,” many of which are biased against women[44]

In the Women and Gender Equity Knowledge Network’s Final Report to the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health in 2007, health systems in many countries were noted to have been unable to deliver adequately on gender equity in health. One explanation for this issue is that many healthcare systems tend to neglect the fact that men and women’s health needs can be very different.[45] In the report, studies have found evidence that the healthcare system can promote gender disparities in health through the lack of gender equity in terms of the way women are regarded – as both consumers (users) and producers (carers) of health care services.[45] For instance, healthcare systems tend to regard women as objects rather than subjects, where services are often provided to women as a means of something else rather on the well-being of women.[45] In the case of reproductive health services, these services are often provided as a form of fertility control rather than as care for women’s well-being.[46] Additionally, although the majority of the workforce in health care systems are female, many of the working conditions remain discriminatory towards women. Many studies have shown that women are often expected to conform to male work models that ignore their special needs, such as childcare or protection from violence.[47] This significantly reduces the ability and efficiency of female caregivers providing care to patients, particularly female ones.
Structural gender oppression Edit
Structural gender inequalities in the allocation of resources, such as income, education, health care, nutrition and political voice, are strongly associated with poor health and reduced well-being. Very often, such structural gender discrimination of women in many other areas has an indirect impact on women’s health. For example, because women in many developing nations are less likely to be part of the formal labor market, they often lack access to job security and the benefits of social protection, including access to health care. Additionally, within the formal workforce, women often face challenges related to their lower status, where they suffer workplace discrimination and sexual harassment. Studies have shown that this expectation of having to balance the demands of paid work and work at home often give rise to work-related fatigue, infections, mental ill-health and other problems, which results in women faring poorer in health.[50]

Women’s health is also put at a higher level of risk as a result of being confined to certain traditional responsibilities, such as cooking and water collection. Being confined to unpaid domestic labor not only reduces women’s opportunities to education and formal job employment (both of which can indirectly contribute to better health in the long run), but also potentially expose women to higher risk of health issues. For instance, in developing regions where solid fuels are used for cooking, women are exposed to a higher level of indoor air pollution due to extended periods of cooking and preparing meals for the family. Breathing air tainted by the burning of solid fuels is estimated to be responsible for 641,000 of the 1.3 million deaths of women worldwide each year due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD).[51]

In some settings, structural gender inequity is associated with particular forms of violence, marginalization, and oppression against females. This includes violent assault by men, child sexual abuse, strict regulation of women’s behavior and movement, female genital mutilation, and exploitative, forced labor.[4] Women and girls are also vulnerable to less well-documented forms of abuse or exploitation, such as human trafficking or “honor killings” for perceived behavioral transgressions and deviation of their social roles. These acts are associated with a wide range of health problems in women such as physical injuries, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, mental disorders such as depression, and anxiety, substance abuse, and sexually transmitted infections, all of which can potentially lead to premature death.[52][53]

The ability of women to utilize health care is also heavily influenced by other forms of structural gender inequalities. These include unequal restriction on one’s mobility and behavior, as well as unequal control over financial resources. Many of these social gender inequalities can impact the way women’s health is regarded, which can in turn determine the level of access women have to healthcare services and the extent by which households and the larger community are willing to invest in women’s health issues.[45]

Other axes of oppression Edit

Uninsured Children by Poverty Status, Household Income, Age, Race and Hispanic Origin and Nativity in the United States in 2009
Apart from gender discrimination, other axes of oppression also exist in society to further marginalize certain groups of women, especially those who are living in poverty or of minority status in which they live.
Race and ethnicity Edit
Race is a well known axis of oppression, where people of color tend to suffer more from structural violence. For people of color, race can serve as a factor, in addition to gender, that can further influence one’s health negatively.[54] Studies have shown that in both high-income and low-income countries, levels of maternal mortality may be up to three times higher among women of disadvantaged ethnic groups than among white women. In a study on race and mother-death within the USA, the maternal mortality rate for African Americans is close to four times higher than that of white women. Similarly in South Africa, the maternal mortality rate for black/African women and women of color is approximately 10 and 5 times greater respectively than that of white/European women.[55]

Socioeconomic status Edit
Although women around the world share many similarities in terms of the health-impacting challenges, there are also many distinct differences that arise from their varying states of socioeconomic conditions. The type of living conditions in which women live is largely associated with not only their own socioeconomic status, but also that of their nation.[4]

At every single age category, women in high income countries tend to live longer and are less likely to suffer from ill health than and premature mortality than those in low income countries. Death rates in high-income countries are also very low among children and younger women, where most deaths occur after the age of 60 years. In low-income countries however, the death rates at young ages are much higher, with most death occurring among girls, adolescents, and younger adult women. Data from 66 developing countries show that child mortality rates among the poorest 20% of the population are almost double those in the top 20%. [56] The most striking health outcome difference between rich and poor countries is maternal mortality. Presently, an overwhelming proportion of maternal mortality is concentrated within the nations that are suffering from poverty or some other form of humanitarian crises, where 99% of the more than half a million maternal deaths every year occur. This comes from the fact that institutional structures which could protect women’s health and well-being are either lacking or poorly developed in these places.[4]

The situation is similar within countries as well, where the health of both girls and women is critically affected by social and economic factors. Those who are living in poverty or of lower socioeconomic status tend to perform poorly in terms of health outcomes. In almost all countries, girls and women living in wealthier households experience lower levels of mortality and higher usage of health care services than those living in the poorer households. Such socioeconomic status-related health disparities is present in every nation around the world, including developed regions.
The Fourth World Conference on Women asserts that men and women share the same right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.[57] However, women are disadvantaged[where?] due to social, cultural, political and economic factors that directly influence their health and impede their access to health-related information and care.[4] In the 2008 World Health Report, the World Health Organization stressed that strategies to improve women’s health must take full account of the underlying determinants of health, particularly gender inequality. Additionally, specific socioeconomic and cultural barriers that hamper women in protecting and improving their health must also be addressed.[58]

Gender mainstreaming Edit

Training rural women in Oral Health Promotion activities in Nepal
Gender mainstreaming was established as a major global strategy for the promotion of gender equality in the Beijing Platform for Action from the Fourth United Nations World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995.[59] Gender mainstreaming is defined by the United Nations Economic and Social Council in 1997 as follows:

“Mainstreaming a gender perspective is the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action, including legislation, policies or programmes, in all areas and at all levels. It is a strategy for making women’s as well as men’s concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes in all political, economic and societal spheres so that women and men benefit equally and inequality is not perpetuated. The ultimate aim is to achieve gender equality.”[59]
Over the past few years, “gender mainstreaming” has become a preferred approach for achieving greater health parity between men and women. It stems from the recognition that while technical strategies are necessary, they are not sufficient in alleviating gender disparities in health unless the gender discrimination, bias and inequality that in organizational structures of governments and organizations – including health systems – are being challenged and addressed.[4] The gender mainstreaming approach is a response to the realisation that gender concerns must be dealt with in every aspect of policy development and programming, through systematic gender analyses and the implementation of actions that address the balance of power and the distribution of resources between women and men.[60] In order to address gender health disparities, gender mainstreaming in health employs a dual focus. First, it seeks to identify and address gender-based differences and inequalities in all health initiatives; and second, it works to implement initiatives that address women’s specific health needs that are a result either of biological differences between women and men (e.g. maternal health) or of gender-based discrimination in society (e.g. gender-based violence; poor access to health services).[61]

Sweden’s new public health policy, which came into force in 2003, has been identified as a key example of mainstreaming gender in health policies. According to the World Health Organization, Sweden’s public health policy is designed to address not only the broader social determinants of health, but also the way in which gender is woven into the public health strategy.[61][62][63] The policy specifically highlights its commitment to address and reduce gender-based inequalities in health.[64]

Female Empowerment Edit
The United Nations has identified the enhancement of women’s involvement as way to achieve gender equality in the realm of education, work, and health.[65] This is because women play critical roles as caregivers, formally and informally, in both the household and the larger community. Within the United States, an estimated 66% of all caregivers are female, with one-third of all female caregivers taking care of two or more people[66] According to the World Health Organization, it is important that approaches and frameworks that are being implemented to address gender disparities in health acknowledge the fact that majority of the care work is provided by women.[4] A meta-analysis of 40 different women’s empowerment projects found that increased female participation have led to a broad range of quality of life improvements. These improvements include increases in women’s advocacy demands and organization strengths, women-centered policy and governmental changes, and improved economic conditions for lower class women.[67]

In Nepal, a community-based participatory intervention to identify local birthing problems and formulating strategies has been shown to be effective in reducing both neonatal and maternal mortality in a rural population.[68] Community-based programs in Malaysia and Sri Lanka that used well-trained midwives as front-line health workers also produced rapid declines in maternal mortality.[69]

Health: history, determinant, mental, maintaining and occupational
May 19, 2017
0
TMPDOODLE1495215403986

Health is the level of functional and metabolic efficiency of a living organism. In humans it is the ability of individuals or communities to adapt and self-manage when facing physical, mental, psychological and social changes.[1] The World Health Organization (WHO) defined health in its broader sense in its 1948 constitution as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”[2][3] This definition has been subject to controversy, in particular as lacking operational value, the ambiguity in developing cohesive health strategies, and because of the problem created by use of the word “complete”.[4][5][6] Other definitions have been proposed, among which a recent definition that correlates health and personal satisfaction.[7] [8] Classification systems such as the WHO Family of International Classifications, including the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), are commonly used to define and measure the components of health.
The definition of health has evolved over time. In keeping with the biomedical perspective, early definitions of health focused on the theme of the body’s ability to function; health was seen as a state of normal function that could be disrupted from time to time by disease. An example of such a definition of health is: “a state characterized by anatomic, physiologic, and psychological integrity; ability to perform personally valued family, work, and community roles; ability to deal with physical, biologic, psychological, and social stress”.[9] Then, in 1948, in a radical departure from previous definitions, the World Health Organization (WHO) proposed a definition that aimed higher: linking health to well-being, in terms of “physical, mental, and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease and infirmity”.[10] Although this definition was welcomed by some as being innovative, it was also criticized as being vague, excessively broad, and was not construed as measurable. For a long time it was set aside as an impractical ideal and most discussions of health returned to the practicality of the biomedical model.[11]

Just as there was a shift from viewing disease as a state to thinking of it as a process, the same shift happened in definitions of health. Again, the WHO played a leading role when it fostered the development of the health promotion movement in the 1980s. This brought in a new conception of health, not as a state, but in dynamic terms of resiliency, in other words, as “a resource for living”. The 1984 WHO revised definition of health defined it as “the extent to which an individual or group is able to realize aspirations and satisfy needs, and to change or cope with the environment. Health is a resource for everyday life, not the objective of living; it is a positive concept, emphasizing social and personal resources, as well as physical capacities”.[12] Thus, health referred to the ability to maintain homeostasis and recover from insults. Mental, intellectual, emotional, and social health referred to a person’s ability to handle stress, to acquire skills, to maintain relationships, all of which form resources for resiliency and independent living.[11]

Since the late 1970s, the federal Healthy People Initiative[dead link] has been a visible component of the United States’ approach to improving population health.[13] In each decade, a new version of Healthy People is issued,[14] featuring updated goals and identifying topic areas and quantifiable objectives for health improvement during the succeeding ten years, with assessment at that point of progress or lack thereof. Progress has been limited for many objectives, leading to concerns about the effectiveness of Healthy People in shaping outcomes in the context of a decentralized and uncoordinated US health system. Healthy People 2020 gives more prominence to health promotion and preventive approaches, and adds a substantive focus on the importance of addressing societal determinants of health. A new expanded digital interface facilitates use and dissemination rather than bulky printed books as produced in the past. The impact of these changes to Healthy People will be determined in the coming years.[15]
Systematic activities to prevent or cure health problems and promote good health in humans are undertaken by health care providers. Applications with regard to animal health are covered by the veterinary sciences. The term “healthy” is also widely used in the context of many types of non-living organizations and their impacts for the benefit of humans, such as in the sense of healthy communities, healthy cities or healthy environments. In addition to health care interventions and a person’s surroundings, a number of other factors are known to influence the health status of individuals, including their background, lifestyle, and economic, social conditions, and spirituality; these are referred to as “determinants of health.” Studies have shown that high levels of stress can affect human health.[16]
Generally, the context in which an individual lives is of great importance for both his health status and quality of their life. It is increasingly recognized that health is maintained and improved not only through the advancement and application of health science, but also through the efforts and intelligent lifestyle choices of the individual and society. According to the World Health Organization, the main determinants of health include the social and economic environment, the physical environment, and the person’s individual characteristics and behaviors.[17]

More specifically, key factors that have been found to influence whether people are healthy or unhealthy include the following:[17][18][19]

Income and social status
Social support networks
Education and literacy
Employment/working conditions
Social environments
Physical environments
Personal health practices and coping skills
Healthy child development
Biology and genetics
Health care services
Gender
Culture

An increasing number of studies and reports from different organizations and contexts examine the linkages between health and different factors, including lifestyles, environments, health care organization, and health policy – such as the 1974 Lalonde report from Canada;[19] the Alameda County Study in California;[20] and the series of World Health Reports of the World Health Organization, which focuses on global health issues including access to health care and improving public health outcomes, especially in developing countries.[21]

The concept of the “health field,” as distinct from medical care, emerged from the Lalonde report from Canada. The report identified three interdependent fields as key determinants of an individual’s health. These are:[19]

Lifestyle: the aggregation of personal decisions (i.e., over which the individual has control) that can be said to contribute to, or cause, illness or death;
Environmental: all matters related to health external to the human body and over which the individual has little or no control;
Biomedical: all aspects of health, physical and mental, developed within the human body as influenced by genetic make-up.
The maintenance and promotion of health is achieved through different combination of physical, mental, and social well-being, together sometimes referred to as the “health triangle.”[22][23] The WHO’s 1986 Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion further stated that health is not just a state, but also “a resource for everyday life, not the objective of living. Health is a positive concept emphasizing social and personal resources, as well as physical capacities.”[24]

Focusing more on lifestyle issues and their relationships with functional health, data from the Alameda County Study suggested that people can improve their health via exercise, enough sleep, maintaining a healthy body weight, limiting alcohol use, and avoiding smoking.[25] Health and illness can co-exist, as even people with multiple chronic diseases or terminal illnesses can consider themselves healthy.[26]

The environment is often cited as an important factor influencing the health status of individuals. This includes characteristics of the natural environment, the built environment, and the social environment. Factors such as clean water and air, adequate housing, and safe communities and roads all have been found to contribute to good health, especially to the health of infants and children.[17][27] Some studies have shown that a lack of neighborhood recreational spaces including natural environment leads to lower levels of personal satisfaction and higher levels of obesity, linked to lower overall health and well being.[28] This suggests that the positive health benefits of natural space in urban neighborhoods should be taken into account in public policy and land use.

Genetics, or inherited traits from parents, also play a role in determining the health status of individuals and populations. This can encompass both the predisposition to certain diseases and health conditions, as well as the habits and behaviors individuals develop through the lifestyle of their families. For example, genetics may play a role in the manner in which people cope with stress, either mental, emotional or physical. For example, obesity is a very large problem in the United States[citation needed] that contributes to bad mental health and causes stress in a lot of people’s lives. (One difficulty is the issue raised by the debate over the relative strengths of genetics and other factors; interactions between genetics and environment may be of particular importance.)
Potential issues Edit
There are a lot of types of health issues common with many people across the globe. Disease is one of the most common. According to GlobalIssues.org, approximately 36 million people die each year from non-communicable (not contagious) disease including cardiovascular disease cancer, diabetes, and chronic lung disease (Shah, 2014).

As for communicable diseases, both viral and bacterial, AIDS/HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria are the most common also causing millions of deaths every year (2014).

Another health issue that causes death or contributes to other health problems is malnutrition majorly among children. One of the groups malnutrition affects most is young children. Approximately 7.5 million children under the age of 5 die from malnutrition, and it is usually brought on by not having the money to find or make food (2014).

Bodily injuries are also a common health issue worldwide. These injuries, including broken bones, fractures, and burns can reduce a person’s quality of life or can cause fatalities including infections that resulted from the injury or the severity injury in general (Moffett, 2013).[29]

Some contributing factors to poor health are lifestyle choices. These include smoking cigarettes, and also can include a poor diet, whether it is overeating or an overly constrictive diet. Inactivity can also contribute to health issues and also a lack of sleep, excessive alcohol consumption, and neglect of oral hygiene (2013). There are also genetic disorders that are inherited by the person and can vary in how much they affect the person and when they surface (2013).

The one health issue that is the most unfortunate because the majority of these health issues are preventable is that approximately 1 billion people lack access to health care systems (Shah, 2014). It is easy to say that the most common and harmful health issue is that a lot of people do not have access to quality remedies.[
The World Health Organization describes mental health as “a state of well-being in which the individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to his or her community”.[32] Mental Health is not just the absence of mental illness.[33]

Mental illness is described as ‘the spectrum of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral conditions that interfere with social and emotional well-being and the lives and productivity of people. Having a mental illness can seriously impair, temporarily or permanently, the mental functioning of a person. Other terms include: ‘mental health problem’, ‘illness’, ‘disorder’, ‘dysfunction’.[34]

Roughly a quarter of all adults 18 and over in the US suffer from a diagnosable mental illness. Mental illnesses are the leading cause of disability in the US and Canada. Examples include, schizophrenia, ADHD, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and autism.[35]

Many teens suffer from mental health issues in response to the pressures of society and social problems they encounter. Some of the key mental health issues seen in teens are: depression, eating disorders, and drug abuse. There are many ways to prevent these health issues from occurring such as communicating well with a teen suffering from mental health issues. Mental health can be treated and be attentive to teens’ behavior.
In addition to safety risks, many jobs also present risks of disease, illness and other long-term health problems. Among the most common occupational diseases are various forms of pneumoconiosis, including silicosis and coal worker’s pneumoconiosis (black lung disease). Asthma is another respiratory illness that many workers are vulnerable to. Workers may also be vulnerable to skin diseases, including eczema, dermatitis, urticaria, sunburn, and skin cancer.[55][56] Other occupational diseases of concern include carpal tunnel syndrome and lead poisoning.

As the number of service sector jobs has risen in developed countries, more and more jobs have become sedentary, presenting a different array of health problems than those associated with manufacturing and the primary sector. Contemporary problems, such as the growing rate of obesity and issues relating to stress and overwork in many countries, have further complicated the interaction between work and health.

Many governments view occupational health as a social challenge and have formed public organizations to ensure the health and safety of workers. Examples of these include the British Health and Safety Executive and in the United States, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which conducts research on occupational health and safety, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which handles regulation and policy relating to worker safety and health.[

Health: history, determinant, mental, maintaining and occupational
May 19, 2017
0
TMPDOODLE1495215403986

Health is the level of functional and metabolic efficiency of a living organism. In humans it is the ability of individuals or communities to adapt and self-manage when facing physical, mental, psychological and social changes.[1] The World Health Organization (WHO) defined health in its broader sense in its 1948 constitution as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”[2][3] This definition has been subject to controversy, in particular as lacking operational value, the ambiguity in developing cohesive health strategies, and because of the problem created by use of the word “complete”.[4][5][6] Other definitions have been proposed, among which a recent definition that correlates health and personal satisfaction.[7] [8] Classification systems such as the WHO Family of International Classifications, including the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), are commonly used to define and measure the components of health.
The definition of health has evolved over time. In keeping with the biomedical perspective, early definitions of health focused on the theme of the body’s ability to function; health was seen as a state of normal function that could be disrupted from time to time by disease. An example of such a definition of health is: “a state characterized by anatomic, physiologic, and psychological integrity; ability to perform personally valued family, work, and community roles; ability to deal with physical, biologic, psychological, and social stress”.[9] Then, in 1948, in a radical departure from previous definitions, the World Health Organization (WHO) proposed a definition that aimed higher: linking health to well-being, in terms of “physical, mental, and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease and infirmity”.[10] Although this definition was welcomed by some as being innovative, it was also criticized as being vague, excessively broad, and was not construed as measurable. For a long time it was set aside as an impractical ideal and most discussions of health returned to the practicality of the biomedical model.[11]

Just as there was a shift from viewing disease as a state to thinking of it as a process, the same shift happened in definitions of health. Again, the WHO played a leading role when it fostered the development of the health promotion movement in the 1980s. This brought in a new conception of health, not as a state, but in dynamic terms of resiliency, in other words, as “a resource for living”. The 1984 WHO revised definition of health defined it as “the extent to which an individual or group is able to realize aspirations and satisfy needs, and to change or cope with the environment. Health is a resource for everyday life, not the objective of living; it is a positive concept, emphasizing social and personal resources, as well as physical capacities”.[12] Thus, health referred to the ability to maintain homeostasis and recover from insults. Mental, intellectual, emotional, and social health referred to a person’s ability to handle stress, to acquire skills, to maintain relationships, all of which form resources for resiliency and independent living.[11]

Since the late 1970s, the federal Healthy People Initiative[dead link] has been a visible component of the United States’ approach to improving population health.[13] In each decade, a new version of Healthy People is issued,[14] featuring updated goals and identifying topic areas and quantifiable objectives for health improvement during the succeeding ten years, with assessment at that point of progress or lack thereof. Progress has been limited for many objectives, leading to concerns about the effectiveness of Healthy People in shaping outcomes in the context of a decentralized and uncoordinated US health system. Healthy People 2020 gives more prominence to health promotion and preventive approaches, and adds a substantive focus on the importance of addressing societal determinants of health. A new expanded digital interface facilitates use and dissemination rather than bulky printed books as produced in the past. The impact of these changes to Healthy People will be determined in the coming years.[15]
Systematic activities to prevent or cure health problems and promote good health in humans are undertaken by health care providers. Applications with regard to animal health are covered by the veterinary sciences. The term “healthy” is also widely used in the context of many types of non-living organizations and their impacts for the benefit of humans, such as in the sense of healthy communities, healthy cities or healthy environments. In addition to health care interventions and a person’s surroundings, a number of other factors are known to influence the health status of individuals, including their background, lifestyle, and economic, social conditions, and spirituality; these are referred to as “determinants of health.” Studies have shown that high levels of stress can affect human health.[16]
Generally, the context in which an individual lives is of great importance for both his health status and quality of their life. It is increasingly recognized that health is maintained and improved not only through the advancement and application of health science, but also through the efforts and intelligent lifestyle choices of the individual and society. According to the World Health Organization, the main determinants of health include the social and economic environment, the physical environment, and the person’s individual characteristics and behaviors.[17]

More specifically, key factors that have been found to influence whether people are healthy or unhealthy include the following:[17][18][19]

Income and social status
Social support networks
Education and literacy
Employment/working conditions
Social environments
Physical environments
Personal health practices and coping skills
Healthy child development
Biology and genetics
Health care services
Gender
Culture

An increasing number of studies and reports from different organizations and contexts examine the linkages between health and different factors, including lifestyles, environments, health care organization, and health policy – such as the 1974 Lalonde report from Canada;[19] the Alameda County Study in California;[20] and the series of World Health Reports of the World Health Organization, which focuses on global health issues including access to health care and improving public health outcomes, especially in developing countries.[21]

The concept of the “health field,” as distinct from medical care, emerged from the Lalonde report from Canada. The report identified three interdependent fields as key determinants of an individual’s health. These are:[19]

Lifestyle: the aggregation of personal decisions (i.e., over which the individual has control) that can be said to contribute to, or cause, illness or death;
Environmental: all matters related to health external to the human body and over which the individual has little or no control;
Biomedical: all aspects of health, physical and mental, developed within the human body as influenced by genetic make-up.
The maintenance and promotion of health is achieved through different combination of physical, mental, and social well-being, together sometimes referred to as the “health triangle.”[22][23] The WHO’s 1986 Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion further stated that health is not just a state, but also “a resource for everyday life, not the objective of living. Health is a positive concept emphasizing social and personal resources, as well as physical capacities.”[24]

Focusing more on lifestyle issues and their relationships with functional health, data from the Alameda County Study suggested that people can improve their health via exercise, enough sleep, maintaining a healthy body weight, limiting alcohol use, and avoiding smoking.[25] Health and illness can co-exist, as even people with multiple chronic diseases or terminal illnesses can consider themselves healthy.[26]

The environment is often cited as an important factor influencing the health status of individuals. This includes characteristics of the natural environment, the built environment, and the social environment. Factors such as clean water and air, adequate housing, and safe communities and roads all have been found to contribute to good health, especially to the health of infants and children.[17][27] Some studies have shown that a lack of neighborhood recreational spaces including natural environment leads to lower levels of personal satisfaction and higher levels of obesity, linked to lower overall health and well being.[28] This suggests that the positive health benefits of natural space in urban neighborhoods should be taken into account in public policy and land use.

Genetics, or inherited traits from parents, also play a role in determining the health status of individuals and populations. This can encompass both the predisposition to certain diseases and health conditions, as well as the habits and behaviors individuals develop through the lifestyle of their families. For example, genetics may play a role in the manner in which people cope with stress, either mental, emotional or physical. For example, obesity is a very large problem in the United States[citation needed] that contributes to bad mental health and causes stress in a lot of people’s lives. (One difficulty is the issue raised by the debate over the relative strengths of genetics and other factors; interactions between genetics and environment may be of particular importance.)
Potential issues Edit
There are a lot of types of health issues common with many people across the globe. Disease is one of the most common. According to GlobalIssues.org, approximately 36 million people die each year from non-communicable (not contagious) disease including cardiovascular disease cancer, diabetes, and chronic lung disease (Shah, 2014).

As for communicable diseases, both viral and bacterial, AIDS/HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria are the most common also causing millions of deaths every year (2014).

Another health issue that causes death or contributes to other health problems is malnutrition majorly among children. One of the groups malnutrition affects most is young children. Approximately 7.5 million children under the age of 5 die from malnutrition, and it is usually brought on by not having the money to find or make food (2014).

Bodily injuries are also a common health issue worldwide. These injuries, including broken bones, fractures, and burns can reduce a person’s quality of life or can cause fatalities including infections that resulted from the injury or the severity injury in general (Moffett, 2013).[29]

Some contributing factors to poor health are lifestyle choices. These include smoking cigarettes, and also can include a poor diet, whether it is overeating or an overly constrictive diet. Inactivity can also contribute to health issues and also a lack of sleep, excessive alcohol consumption, and neglect of oral hygiene (2013). There are also genetic disorders that are inherited by the person and can vary in how much they affect the person and when they surface (2013).

The one health issue that is the most unfortunate because the majority of these health issues are preventable is that approximately 1 billion people lack access to health care systems (Shah, 2014). It is easy to say that the most common and harmful health issue is that a lot of people do not have access to quality remedies.[
The World Health Organization describes mental health as “a state of well-being in which the individual realizes his or her own abilities, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to his or her community”.[32] Mental Health is not just the absence of mental illness.[33]

Mental illness is described as ‘the spectrum of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral conditions that interfere with social and emotional well-being and the lives and productivity of people. Having a mental illness can seriously impair, temporarily or permanently, the mental functioning of a person. Other terms include: ‘mental health problem’, ‘illness’, ‘disorder’, ‘dysfunction’.[34]

Roughly a quarter of all adults 18 and over in the US suffer from a diagnosable mental illness. Mental illnesses are the leading cause of disability in the US and Canada. Examples include, schizophrenia, ADHD, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and autism.[35]

Many teens suffer from mental health issues in response to the pressures of society and social problems they encounter. Some of the key mental health issues seen in teens are: depression, eating disorders, and drug abuse. There are many ways to prevent these health issues from occurring such as communicating well with a teen suffering from mental health issues. Mental health can be treated and be attentive to teens’ behavior.
In addition to safety risks, many jobs also present risks of disease, illness and other long-term health problems. Among the most common occupational diseases are various forms of pneumoconiosis, including silicosis and coal worker’s pneumoconiosis (black lung disease). Asthma is another respiratory illness that many workers are vulnerable to. Workers may also be vulnerable to skin diseases, including eczema, dermatitis, urticaria, sunburn, and skin cancer.[55][56] Other occupational diseases of concern include carpal tunnel syndrome and lead poisoning.

As the number of service sector jobs has risen in developed countries, more and more jobs have become sedentary, presenting a different array of health problems than those associated with manufacturing and the primary sector. Contemporary problems, such as the growing rate of obesity and issues relating to stress and overwork in many countries, have further complicated the interaction between work and health.

Many governments view occupational health as a social challenge and have formed public organizations to ensure the health and safety of workers. Examples of these include the British Health and Safety Executive and in the United States, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which conducts research on occupational health and safety, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which handles regulation and policy relating to worker safety and health.[

Do you know what x-ray mean????
May 19, 2017
0
TMPDOODLE1495209030280

In 1895, German physicist Wilhelm Roentgen made an important discovery while experimenting with electron beams in a special tube. Wilhelm noticed that a fluorescent screen in his lab started glowing when the electron beam was turned on.

 

While Wilhelm knew fluorescent material normally glows when exposed to electromagnetic radiation, he was still surprised because heavy cardboard, which he thought would have blocked the radiation, surrounded the tube.

 

He began to experiment by placing different objects between the tube and the screen. No matter what he put between the two, the screen still glowed.

 

At one point, Wilhelm placed his hand in front of the tube. When he did this, he saw a silhouette of his bones projected onto the screen.

 

Not only had Wilhelm discovered X-rays, he saw firsthand (pun intended!) how they could become extremely beneficial to medicine.

 

X-rays are a type of light ray, much like the visible light we see every day. The difference between visible light and X-rays is the wavelength of the rays. Human eyes cannot see light with longer wavelengths, such as radio waves, or light with shorter wavelengths, such as X-rays.

 

X-rays can pass through nonmetallic objects, including human tissues and organs. An X-ray machine is like a giant camera that allows doctors to see what is going on inside a patient without having to do surgery.

 

To produce an X-ray picture, an X-ray machine produces a very concentrated beam of electrons known as X-ray photons. This beam travels through the air, comes into contact with our body tissues, and produces an image on a metal film.

 

Soft tissue, such as skin and organs, cannot absorb the high-energy rays, and the beam passes through them. Dense materials inside our bodies, like bones, absorb the radiation.

 

Much like camera film, the X-ray film develops depending on which areas were exposed to the X-rays. Black areas on an X-ray represent areas where the X-rays have passed through soft tissues. White areas show where denser tissues, such as bones, have absorbed the X-rays.In 1895, German physicist Wilhelm Roentgen made an important discovery while experimenting with electron beams in a special tube. Wilhelm noticed that a fluorescent screen in his lab started glowing when the electron beam was turned on.

 

 

 

While Wilhelm knew fluorescent material normally glows when exposed to electromagnetic radiation, he was still surprised because heavy cardboard, which he thought would have blocked the radiation, surrounded the tube.

 

 

 

He began to experiment by placing different objects between the tube and the screen. No matter what he put between the two, the screen still glowed.

 

 

 

At one point, Wilhelm placed his hand in front of the tube. When he did this, he saw a silhouette of his bones projected onto the screen.

 

 

 

Not only had Wilhelm discovered X-rays, he saw firsthand (pun intended!) how they could become extremely beneficial to medicine.

 

 

 

X-rays are a type of light ray, much like the visible light we see every day. The difference between visible light and X-rays is the wavelength of the rays. Human eyes cannot see light with longer wavelengths, such as radio waves, or light with shorter wavelengths, such as X-rays.

 

 

 

X-rays can pass through nonmetallic objects, including human tissues and organs. An X-ray machine is like a giant camera that allows doctors to see what is going on inside a patient without having to do surgery.

 

 

 

To produce an X-ray picture, an X-ray machine produces a very concentrated beam of electrons known as X-ray photons. This beam travels through the air, comes into contact with our body tissues, and produces an image on a metal film.

 

 

 

Soft tissue, such as skin and organs, cannot absorb the high-energy rays, and the beam passes through them. Dense materials inside our bodies, like bones, absorb the radiation.

 

 

 

Much like camera film, the X-ray film develops depending on which areas were exposed to the X-rays. Black areas on an X-ray represent areas where the X-rays have passed through soft tissues. White areas show where denser tissues, such as bones, have absorbed the X-rays.

Wonder What’s Next?

Watch your step! The forecast calls for ice in Wonderopolis tomorrow. You may want to take tomorrow’s Wonder of the Day with a grain of salt.

Try It Out

 

Want to make your own X-ray? Draw yourself from the inside out with this fun activity!

sleeping pills and depression. become free
May 18, 2017
1
brain-memory

Well iv been taking sleeping pills for about 2 years. Just the over the counter pain pill with sleep aid . started out sleeping more but  feeling tired and loss of energy during the day. It went on and i began getting stomach aches. then my muscles were tired and sore. I dont smoke and i drink little. I did not know what to do because i could not sleep. So it was either not sleep or take these pills . Well after a while the 1 pill wasn’t working so i upped it to 2 pills slept a little more but felt a little worse . I am a inner inspired person i find a dime where there is only a penny. but i was feeling depressed and weak and tired during the day. I also have psoriasis arthritis so i live with pain anyway .Docs tell me and i quote . “live with it” they obviously dont know the pain and problems it causes and they dont care . Anyways back to the sleeping pills . They would put me in a trance like sleeping mode. half asleep . that was crazy annoying. I was feeling so tired, depressed, confused and memory loss. So i went to the doctor they gave me a brain scan and said i was fine. ok when you cant remember your own address or your phone number or your last name . something is not right . but needed sleep so upped the pills to 3 a night . Very tired depressed confused fatigued . more loss of memory . and still the half asleep problem. these pills are clearly not the way to go. but where do you go ? well down to 1 pill a night again. not good sleep. tried banana seemed to work a little. Going to research some natural products but not with chemicals in them. all natural . We are being poisoned and all so people can get rich off these med. My advice is to not get started on these things. Eat healthy , Stretch daily . Talk to yourself and be happy.

What You Should Know About Energy Drinks
May 18, 2017
2
redbull-924061_1920

Red Bull, Monster Beverage, Rockstar, Emergen C, Perrier, and Power Bar are all popular energy drinks today. Not to mention some pops. The energy drink industry produces drink mixes, canned drinks and shots for the consumer. In the year 2016 the energy drink industry showed a sales growth of 5.13 compared to the previous year. Sales are in the billions and forecasted to reach $61 Billion by 2021.

These drinks are easy to come by with distribution channels in supermarkets and convenience stores. The taste, affordable price and availability are all sited as important product attributes. Couple this with the allure of feeling more energetic for a period of time and these can be a very real option for the busy people at large. This includes students and many of these teenagers.

In May 2017 a sixteen year old teen ager in South Carolina callasped and later died after drinking a latte, a energy drink and large soft drink in a two hour span and had a cardiac event. Parents need to know this and have a dialogue with their children.

National health organizations are warning against them. It is not just the caffeine in some of these drinks but other stimulants. It is believed that energy drinks contain additives that have not been tested on teens and they should not be drinking them at all. Such legal stimulants as taurine which is an amino acid, L-carnitine which is a substance in our bodies known to turn fat into energy, and guarana that is used by runners in the Amazon. This natural ingredients as well as b vitamins and added sugar made up the ingredients of these energy drinks. The concern is that when these natural ingredients, when mixed with caffeine may enhance their effect. People need to be aware that not a lot is known about the mixture of these ingredients along with caffeine and that these can be potentially dangerous, especially when used in excess.

It is a requirement that caffeine be listed on any energy drink label. One 8 ounce cup of coffee contains about 100 milligrams of caffeine. So, for the general population of healthy adults consuming up to 400 mg of caffeine daily is not considered an adverse health risk.

Do you know how forensic dentistry work??????
May 18, 2017
0
giphy(3)

In January 1978, a manhunt was underway for one of the most notorious serial killers in the history of the United States. Ted Bundy was being held in a small jail in Glenwood Springs, Colo., while awaiting trial for the murder of Caryn Campbell. He escaped by sawing through a metal plate in the ceiling, going through the crawlspace above and walking out through the apartment of the jailer, who happened to be out for the night.

After traveling through Illinois, Michigan and Georgia, Bundy ended up in Tallahassee, Fla. On Jan. 15, 1978, he went into the Chi Omega sorority house at Florida State University. He bludgeoned four students with a club and strangled them. Lisa Levy and Margaret Bowman were killed. Bundy also sexually assaulted Levy and bit her, leaving clear bite marks.

Bundy was recaptured in February 1978 and eventually went on trial for the murders he committed in the Chi Omega house. The bite mark was the only piece of physical evidence that he left at the scene. Investigators took plaster casts of Bundy’s teeth, w­hich showed that his teeth were unevenly aligned and that several of them were chipped. A forensic dentist was able to show that these casts matched with photographs of the bite mark from the body of Lisa Levy. This evidence was instrumental in his conviction; if Bundy hadn’t bitten Lisa Levy while assaulting her, he may not have been found guilty.

The Bundy case is just one example of how our teeth can uniquely identify us. Forensic dentists (also known as forensic odontologists) have two different tasks: to identify the dead by their teeth and to determine who (or what) did the biting when bite marks are found. Let’s start by looking at the system that all dentists use to distinguish one tooth from another.

FORENSIC DENTISTRY IN HISTORY
One of the earliest known examples of forensic dentistry involved Agrippina, the mother of Roman emperor Nero. In 49 B.C., Agrippina ordered the death of her rival Lollia Paulina, who was in competition with her to be the wife of Emperor Claudius. Agrippina demanded to see Lollia Paulina’s head as proof of her death, but she wasn’t sure that her rival was dead until she noticed Lollia Paulina’s distinctive discolored front teeth.
Another famous foray into forensic dentistry was that of Paul Revere, who in addition to being a blacksmith was also a dentist. He helped identify Revolutionary War dead who had been buried on the battlefield by their teeth and dental work. Revere was able to identify Dr. Joseph Warren, the man who sent him on his famous ride, because he had made him a partial out of silver wire and pieces of hippo tusk.
In January 1978, a manhunt was underway for one of the most notorious serial killers in the history of the United States. Ted Bundy was being held in a small jail in Glenwood Springs, Colo., while awaiting trial for the murder of Caryn Campbell. He escaped by sawing through a metal plate in the ceiling, going through the crawlspace above and walking out through the apartment of the jailer, who happened to be out for the night.

After traveling through Illinois, Michigan and Georgia, Bundy ended up in Tallahassee, Fla. On Jan. 15, 1978, he went into the Chi Omega sorority house at Florida State University. He bludgeoned four students with a club and strangled them. Lisa Levy and Margaret Bowman were killed. Bundy also sexually assaulted Levy and bit her, leaving clear bite marks.

Bundy was recaptured in February 1978 and eventually went on trial for the murders he committed in the Chi Omega house. The bite mark was the only piece of physical evidence that he left at the scene. Investigators took plaster casts of Bundy’s teeth, w­hich showed that his teeth were unevenly aligned and that several of them were chipped. A forensic dentist was able to show that these casts matched with photographs of the bite mark from the body of Lisa Levy. This evidence was instrumental in his conviction; if Bundy hadn’t bitten Lisa Levy while assaulting her, he may not have been found guilty.

The Bundy case is just one example of how our teeth can uniquely identify us. Forensic dentists (also known as forensic odontologists) have two different tasks: to identify the dead by their teeth and to determine who (or what) did the biting when bite marks are found. Let’s start by looking at the system that all dentists use to distinguish one tooth from another.

FORENSIC DENTISTRY IN HISTORY
One of the earliest known examples of forensic dentistry involved Agrippina, the mother of Roman emperor Nero. In 49 B.C., Agrippina ordered the death of her rival Lollia Paulina, who was in competition with her to be the wife of Emperor Claudius. Agrippina demanded to see Lollia Paulina’s head as proof of her death, but she wasn’t sure that her rival was dead until she noticed Lollia Paulina’s distinctive discolored front teeth.
Another famous foray into forensic dentistry was that of Paul Revere, who in addition to being a blacksmith was also a dentist. He helped identify Revolutionary War dead who had been buried on the battlefield by their teeth and dental work. Revere was able to identify Dr. Joseph Warren, the man who sent him on his famous ride, because he had made him a partial out of silver wire and pieces of hippo tusk.
In January 1978, a manhunt was underway for one of the most notorious serial killers in the history of the United States. Ted Bundy was being held in a small jail in Glenwood Springs, Colo., while awaiting trial for the murder of Caryn Campbell. He escaped by sawing through a metal plate in the ceiling, going through the crawlspace above and walking out through the apartment of the jailer, who happened to be out for the night.

After traveling through Illinois, Michigan and Georgia, Bundy ended up in Tallahassee, Fla. On Jan. 15, 1978, he went into the Chi Omega sorority house at Florida State University. He bludgeoned four students with a club and strangled them. Lisa Levy and Margaret Bowman were killed. Bundy also sexually assaulted Levy and bit her, leaving clear bite marks.

Bundy was recaptured in February 1978 and eventually went on trial for the murders he committed in the Chi Omega house. The bite mark was the only piece of physical evidence that he left at the scene. Investigators took plaster casts of Bundy’s teeth, w­hich showed that his teeth were unevenly aligned and that several of them were chipped. A forensic dentist was able to show that these casts matched with photographs of the bite mark from the body of Lisa Levy. This evidence was instrumental in his conviction; if Bundy hadn’t bitten Lisa Levy while assaulting her, he may not have been found guilty.

The Bundy case is just one example of how our teeth can uniquely identify us. Forensic dentists (also known as forensic odontologists) have two different tasks: to identify the dead by their teeth and to determine who (or what) did the biting when bite marks are found. Let’s start by looking at the system that all dentists use to distinguish one tooth from another.

FORENSIC DENTISTRY IN HISTORY
One of the earliest known examples of forensic dentistry involved Agrippina, the mother of Roman emperor Nero. In 49 B.C., Agrippina ordered the death of her rival Lollia Paulina, who was in competition with her to be the wife of Emperor Claudius. Agrippina demanded to see Lollia Paulina’s head as proof of her death, but she wasn’t sure that her rival was dead until she noticed Lollia Paulina’s distinctive discolored front teeth.
Another famous foray into forensic dentistry was that of Paul Revere, who in addition to being a blacksmith was also a dentist. He helped identify Revolutionary War dead who had been buried on the battlefield by their teeth and dental work. Revere was able to identify Dr. Joseph Warren, the man who sent him on his famous ride, because he had made him a partial out of silver wire and pieces of hippo tusk.
Types of Teeth
Teeth aren’t fingerprints; they aren’t inherently unique from birth. When teeth grow in, or erupt, they do so differently in each person. Teeth grow an average of 4 micrometers per day, so it’s possible to give a rough age estimate based on teeth. It can also be possible to distinguish ethnicity from the teeth. Some Asians and Native Americans have incisors with scooped-out backs.

The patterns of tooth wear also vary and can chan­ge over time. Not only can people be identified by their teeth, you can also learn a lot about their lifestyles and habits by the state of their teeth.

Although each type of tooth has a different name, we have multiples of some types of teeth. For example, a full set of adult teeth includes two upper central incisors and two upper lateral incisors. Therefore, each individual tooth needs its own designation. There are dozens of methods for labeling teeth in use, but the three most popular methods are the Universal System, the Palmer Method and the FDI (Fédération Dentaire Internationale) World Dental Federation notation.
In the United States, most dentists use the Universal System. In this system, each of the 32 adult teeth is assigned a number. Number one is the upper right third molar, while number 32 is the lower right third molar. The 20 deciduous, or baby teeth, are designated by the letters A through K or the number-letter combination of 1d through 20d.

Some teeth, like molars, have multiple surfaces too. Each of these surfaces has a name. The center of the tooth is the biting surface, known as the occlusal. This surface has two elements: the cusps, or raised parts, and the grooves, or indentions. The mesial surface of the tooth is toward the front of the mouth, while the distal is toward the back. The side toward the inside of the mouth is the palatal surface on the upper jaw (lingual on the lower jaw). The tooth surface facing the cheek is the buccal. So if you get a filling on the distal of number 15, you’ll know that means it’s on the surface facing the back of the mouth on your upper second molar (or 12-year molar).

When you visit the dentist for a checkup, he or she uses a Universal System chart and makes a notation on each tooth to show variations such as chips and dental work such as fillings, crowns and bridges. The dentist also includes observations about the health of your teeth, like receding gums or signs of periodontal disease. Most dental visits involve taking sets of X-rays, which can also show work not easily seen, like root canals.

In the next section, we’ll look at how forensic dentists use these records to identify teeth.
Tooth Identification
There is no database of teeth that corresponds with databases of fingerprints or DNA, so dental records are how forensic dentists identify the dead. Tooth enamel (the outer layer of teeth) is harder than any other substance in the human body, which is why teeth remain long after all other parts have decayed. Victims of fires are often identified by their teeth, which can withstand temperatures of more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit (1,093 degrees Celsius). Teeth that have been through especially intense heat are very fragile and may shrink, but they can be preserved with lacquer and used for identification as long as they are handled very carefully. Dental work, such as a partial or gold crown, will be distorted by fire but can still aid in identification.

To identify a person from his or her teeth, a forensic dentist must have a dental record or records from the deceased person’s dentist. In the case of an incident involving multiple deaths, forensic dentists receive a list of possible individuals and compare available records with the teeth and find a match. Examining the teeth of an intact corpse often requires working in a morgue to expose the jaws surgically. Even if only a few teeth are available, a forensic dentist can still make a positive identification. The best comparisons come from X-rays, but even if those aren’t available, notations on the tooth chart can tell the dentist if the teeth are the same.
Identifying an individual by his or her teeth without dental records is much more difficult. However, things like broken teeth, missing teeth and gold crowns might be recognized by the friends and family members of the deceased. Things about the biter’s lifestyle can be determined by the teeth; a constant pipe smoker or a bagpipe player has a distinctive wear pattern. Dressmakers and tailors, who often put pins and needles in their mouths, may have chipped teeth.

In addition to the dental records, forensic investigators can retrieve DNA samples by extracting the pulp from the center of the tooth. Unlike the enamel, pulp can be damaged by fire and other conditions, but it can also last for hundreds of years. Dental identification is often the last resort, and it isn’t always possible — some people simply can’t be identified.

We’ll look at the other aspect of forensic dentistry, bite-mark analysis, next.

TEETH AND THE BLACK DEATH
Teeth have been used to answer historical questions as well as identify victims. For years, scientists and historians have sought to discover if the bubonic plague outbreaks during the Middle Ages were actually caused by the Yersinia pestis bacteria. Pulp was extracted from the teeth of people who had allegedly died of the plague, and the DNA tested for the presences of Y. pestis. Although it was found in some of the teeth, not all of the alleged plague victims’ teeth contained the bacteria. Some of these people died of other diseases and not bubonic plague after all.
Although the Chi Omega murder trial had bite-mark evidence as its centerpiece, it’s usually used in conjunction with other types of physical evidence. Bite-mark analysis is extremely complex, with many factors involved in a forensic dentist’s ability to determine the identity of the perpetrator.

The movement of a person’s jaw and tongue when he or she bites contributes to the type of mark that is left. Depending on the location of the bite, it’s not typical to find bite marks where both the upper and lower teeth left clear impressions — usually one or the other is more visible. If the victim is moving while being bitten, the bite would look different from that inflicted on a still victim.

If an investigator sees something on a victim that even resembles a bite, the forensic dentist must be called in immediately, because bite marks change significantly over time. For example, if the victim is deceased, the skin may slip as the body decays, causing the bite to move.

The first step in analyzing the bite is to identify it as human. Animal teeth are very different from humans’ teeth, so they leave very different bite-mark patterns. Next, the bite is swabbed for DNA, which may have been left in the saliva of the biter. The dentist must also determine whether the bite was self-inflicted.

Forensic dentists then take measurements of each individual bite mark and record it. They also require many photographs because of the changing nature of the bites. Bruising can appear four hours after a bite and disappear after 36 hours. If the victim is deceased, the dentist may have to wait until the lividity stage, or pooling of the blood, clears and details are visible. The bite photography must be conducted precisely, using rulers and other scales to accurately depict the orientation, depth and size of the bite. The photos are then magnified, enhanced and corrected for distortions.

Finally, bite marks on deceased victims are cut out from the skin in the morgue and preserved in a compound called formalin, which contains formaldehyde. Forensic dentists then make a silicone cast of the bite mark.

Forensic dentists use several different terms to describe the type of bite mark:

Abrasion – a scrape on the skin
Artifact – when a piece of the body, such as an ear lobe, is removed through biting
Avulsion – a bite resulting in the removal of skin
Contusion – a bruise
Hemorrhage – a profusely bleeding bite
Incision – a clean, neat wound
Laceration – a puncture wound
In addition, there are several different types of impressions that can be left by teeth, depending on the pressure applied by the biter. A clear impression means that there was significant pressure; an obvious bite signifies medium pressure; and a noticeable impression means that the biter used violent pressure to bite down.

A forensic dentist can tell a lot about the teeth of the biter based on the bite mark. If there’s a gap in the bite, the biter is probably missing a tooth. Crooked teeth leave crooked impressions, and chipped teeth leave jagged-looking impressions of varying depth. Braces and partials also leave distinctive impressions.

Once investigators have identified a suspect, they obtain a warrant to take a mold of his or her teeth as well as photos of the mouth in various stages of opening and biting. They then compare transparencies of the mold with those of the bite-mark cast, and photos of both the bite mark and the suspect’s teeth are compared to look for similarities.

Six Simple Ways to Improve Your Brain Health & Memory
May 18, 2017
0
brain-memory

There are various ways to improve brain memory. The brain memory is like other organs that require regular practice to always be in good condition, as well as the athletes must train their body to face difficult times while doing sports or hard games. The brain memory requires special training in order to remain in fresh condition and to improve its ability. There are a few simple ways you can follow to keep your brain memory in good condition, as well as the techniques that can really help you improve your brain memory performance.

The Causes of Memory Reduction

Our memory does not only depend on the education, learning environment, and physical environment. But also depends on the other factors that may affect our life (e.g. losing a loved one). However, there are also genetic factors such as;

Sleep Habit

There is a direct connection between sleep deprivation, insomnia, and memory loss. A quality sleep in the night is very important for the function of our brain. The research has shown that it takes at least 6 hours of sleep for the memory to function at its maximum capability.

Therefore, take into account your sleep quality. If you get enough sleep within 24 hours, your brain memory remains good, reduced stress, and your body is healthy.

Depression

Depression is a debilitating cause of memory. Nowadays, depression has become a very common disruption. Depression can happen to anyone and anytime. There are many causes of depression It can be serious accidents or mental situations that can shock the mind such as the losing a loved one.

In the case of depression, it is important to seek help and advice from qualified physicians. The right depression medication allows for full recovery of memory.

Thyroid Gland Disease

Based on the research, thyroid gland disease affects a lot of people and has a negative effect on memory.

The early diagnosis of thyroid gland disease will prevent further damage from the memory. Thyroid gland disease can occur at any age.

Diabetes

Diabetes can be a deadly disease. Many diabetes sufferers do not treat diabetes well that can cause vascular system failure. If the vascular system failure keeps continuing due to untreated diabetes can make memory decline.

The proper treatment and control of diabetes will improve the brain memory. Other chronic diseases such as the liver, lung, and kidney also affect memory. In the case of early diagnosis and to be continued with a treatment will improve the memory and prevent further damage.

Alcohol and Drugs

Alcohol addiction and certain types of drugs can cause memory loss or even degeneration of other intellectual abilities.

Alcoholics initially have problems with their short-term memory, then, such amnesia is exacerbated by a long-term memory problem.

Moderate consumption of alcohol (1 to 2 cups for men and 1 cup for women, daily), does not harm the brain memory. Conversely, the excessive alcohol consumption can be toxic to the brain and memory.

Drugs can harm the brain and reduce mental ability. For example, ecstasy drugs cause serious damage to memory.

Lack of Vitamin B12

The lack of certain vitamins can also cause memory loss. The brain needs Vitamin B12 for its function optimally. A balanced diet provides vitamins and minerals to the body. So, when you are diet, make sure you get the vitamins and minerals to your body.

You can get Vitamin B12 from fishes, eggs, meats, poultry, milk and dairy products. This vitamin helps the circulatory system and brain health.

The Six Ways to Increase Memory

As what have been mentioned above; our memory is like an athlete. The more you train your brain and memory the better their performance. The saying “practice makes perfect” also applies to our memory as well. In addition to the factors that can cause memory loss, there are several ways to improve your memory. The following are the six ways to improve memory;

Learn Every Day

Look for the topics that interest you and start getting involved in it by learning new information and developments on the topic. If possible, you can join a group that has the same interests as you to discuss with people in the group.

Reading, writing, programs, information from the television and the internet, are good sources of continuing your learning. In which, they can train your brain to memorize better.

Establish Your Social Relationships

Basically human have its inherent friendliness. The more social an individual is the better the brain. Being lonely in an isolated room would damage body systems. There are many studies which have shown that there are many advantages of good family and social relationships for the brain and heart.

To establish your social relationships, you can be a volunteer to provide help to those who need help or participate in some organized groups that interest you. For example, if you love pets and have a pet, you can socialize with other people who also have pets and discuss with them about the relevant issues and develop closer relationships with them.

Develop New Habits

Every time you require yourself to do something new, you are triggering a new power to achieve a set of goals.

Consider changing the layout of your furniture, applying butter to bread in different ways or with your eyes closed, wearing pants with one hand, or learning to use the mouse of your computer with your other hand. You can think of some other ideas to train your brain and help improve your memory.

Train Your Mind with the Games

The more you use the privilege of the brain, the more you help your memory stays fresh. There are many games that evoke your intellectual abilities, while also contributing to better social relationships. Backgammon, chess, puzzles and many other board games that offer entertainment and also help you improve your memory.

Doing Sports Can Improve Your Memory

You can do sports to improve your circulatory system. Even, some simple but routine daily exercises such as fast walking can improve the cardiovascular performance and oxygenation. No need to be a marathon runner or a football player in order takes the advantages of doing sports. The benefits of exercise have a positive effect on a lot of body systems, especially memory and other cognitive abilities. Simply take at least simple exercises for 20 minutes every day such as walking, cycling, jogging, or swimming.

It has been scientifically proven that walking for 2.5 hours every week will substantially improve memory for people over the age of 50.

Foods that Can Help Improve Your Memory

What we eat every day affects the performance and condition of our memory in the long run. There are many surveys in recent decades have shown that certain foods can contribute to improving the function of the neural circuits of the brain that can control the memory.

The good foods for memory are those with rich in antioxidants and vitamins that are beneficial to the nervous system.

Take into account that to get enough vitamins intake to your body, it’s better to eat more fruits and vegetables than to ingest vitamin formulations. The reason, eating your vitamin-rich foods also absorbs other useful nutrients that act to supplement and support the vitamin work in your body.

The following are good foods to improve your memory;

  • Green leafy vegetables, spinach, cabbage, lettuce
  • Broccoli and cauliflower
  • Juice, fruits
  • Various kinds of berries and pomegranates
  • Nuts
  • Fatty fish such as salmon, sardines, and mackerel
  • Olive oil and other vegetable oils

(The sources of this article are taken from some credible health magazines)