BackgroundIndividuals with low socioeconomic status (SES) are generally less well reached through lifestyle interventions than individuals with higher SES. The aim of this study was to identify opportunities for adapting lifestyle interventions in such a way that they are more appealing for individuals with low SES. To this end, the study provides insight into perspectives of groups with different socioeconomic positions regarding their current eating and physical activity behaviour; triggers for lifestyle change; and ways to support lifestyle change.MethodsData were gathered in semi-structured focus group interviews among low SES (four groups) and high SES (five groups) adults. The group size varied between four and nine participants. The main themes discussed were perceptions and experiences of healthy eating, physical activity and lifestyle advice. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and a thematic approach was used to analyse the data.ResultsIn general, three key topics were identified, namely: current lifestyle is logical for participants given their personal situation; lifestyle change is prompted by feedback from their body; and support for lifestyle change should include individually tailored advice and could profit from involving others. The perceptions of the low SES participants were generally comparable to the perceptions shared by the high SES participants. Some perceptions were, however, especially shared in the low SES groups. Low SES participants indicated that their current eating behaviour was sometimes affected by cost concerns. They seemed to be especially motivated to change their lifestyle when they experienced health complaints, but were rather hesitant to change their lifestyle for preventive purposes. Regarding support for lifestyle change, low SES participants preferred to receive advice in a group rather than on their own. For physical activities, groups should preferably consist of persons of the same age, gender or physical condition.ConclusionsTo motivate individuals with low SES to change their lifestyle, it may be useful to (visually) raise their awareness of their current weight or health status. Lifestyle interventions targeting individuals with low SES should take possible cost concerns into account and should harness the supportive effect of (peer) groups.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-1036) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The gate-keeping function that physicians perform in determining clients' physical and mental incapacities is widely assumed to be the main reason for the rising numbers of disabled people. The sharp rise in the number of disabled has led many to claim that the disability benefits schemes are untenable. In order to regain public control and to make disabled eligibility procedures more transparent guidelines have been introduced in which medical evaluations are conceptualised as formal rational decisions. It is, however, questionable whether such measures are helpful in achieving their stated aims. This paper is based on ethnographic research on the ways physicians evaluate the eligibility of clients for disability benefits. It argues that assessing incapacity involves much more than formal rational decision-making. Doctors' reasoning is contextual and deliberative in character, and thus their assessment of a client's incapacity is less a technical matter than a normative one. Instead of generating transparency, guidelines based on formal rationality make the complex deliberations on which such judgments are based invisible, because they deny the normative dimension of medical expert decision-making. Therefore, different measures have to be developed that allow this normative dimension to be articulated, since insight into this normative dimension is a necessary pre-condition to be able to criticise disability judgments at all.

BackgroundDeveloping, implementing and evaluating worksite health promotion requires dealing with all stakeholders involved, such as employers, employees, occupational physicians, insurance companies, providers, labour unions and research and knowledge institutes. Although worksite health promotion is becoming more common, empirical research on ethical considerations of worksite health promotion is scarce.MethodsWe explored the views of stakeholders involved in worksite health promotion in focus group discussions and we described the ethical considerations that result from differences between these views. The focus group discussions were organised per stakeholder group. Data were analysed according to the constant comparison method.ResultsOur analyses show that although the definition of occupational health is the same for all stakeholders, namely ‘being able to perform your job’, there seem to be important differences in the views on what constitutes a risk factor to occupational health. According to the employees, risk factors to occupational health are prevailingly job-related. Labour unions agree with them, but other stakeholders, including the employer, particularly see employee-related issues such as lifestyle behaviour as risk factors to occupational health. The difference in definition of occupational health risk factors translates into the same categorisation of worksite health promotion; employee-related activities and work-related activities. The difference in conceptualisation of occupational health risk factors and worksite health promotion resonates in the way stakeholders understand ‘responsibility’ for lifestyle behaviour. Even though all stakeholders agree on whose responsibility lifestyle behaviour is, namely that of the employee, the meaning of ‘responsibility’ differs between employees, and employers. For employees, responsibility means autonomy, while for employers and other stakeholders, responsibility equals duty. This difference may in turn contribute to ambivalent relationships between stakeholders.ConclusionAll stakeholders, including employees, should be given a voice in developing, implementing and evaluating worksite health promotion. Moreover, since stakeholders agree on lifestyle being the responsibility of the employee, but disagree on what this responsibility means (duty versus autonomy), it is of utmost importance to examine the discourse of stakeholders. This way, ambivalence in relationships between stakeholders could be prevented.

Lifestyle interventions often fail to successfully reach individuals with lower socio-economic status (SES), possibly because of the individual behavioural orientation to health behaviour and because limited research has included the target groups’ perspectives in the development of interventions. Certainly, in order to make lifestyle interventions more applicable, target groups’ viewpoints should to be taken into account. In order to tailor an effective lifestyle intervention to groups with lower SES of different ethnic origins, 14 focus group interviews were conducted with Turkish, Moroccan and Dutch male and female groups. The target groups’ responses highlight their viewpoint and their dilemmas with regard to physical activity behaviour and healthy eating. Exploration of the target groups’ behaviour in terms of their own logic revealed three prominent themes. Firstly, some individuals find it difficult to maintain healthy eating habits and regular physical activities, as their concept of a healthy life comprises competing values and activities. Secondly, social norms and social practices of others influence health behaviour. Thirdly, respondents’ answers reflect how they deal with the dilemma of competing values and norms. They use different ways of reasoning to make sense of their own (health) behaviour. Taken together, the results of this study suggest that considering physical activity and eating as collective social practices rather than as determinants of health will provide new opportunities to initiate healthy lifestyles and to make lifestyle interventions more applicable to target groups’ realities.

With the increased attention on labour market participation, the field of work reintegration support has grown dramatically. In order to improve professionals' performance, standards and performance measures are introduced in this field. We question whether this will improve the quality of their work. Closer scrutiny needs to be paid to the inherently normative and structuring role of professional judging. We applied the concept of 'frames of reference' to the process of professional judgement in work reintegration. This concept helped us to understand how a work reintegration professional structures a client's story through implicit rules that escape formalization and control mechanisms. On the basis of 24 in-depth interviews with diverse work reintegration professionals in the Netherlands, we distinguish five of these frames: a procedural, a work-focused, a caring, a learning and a facilitating frame of reference. Furthermore, we show that professionals differ widely in the images they have of clients, leading to a large variety in judgement of, and interaction with, clients. Though differences between professionals are inherent to a complex and dynamic field as work reintegration, the current variety in professional-client contact in work reintegration seems to depend too much on arbitrary professional preferences. Therefore, reflection on these differences, both among professionals and by policymakers, is needed in order to improve the professional practice of work reintegration service.

This article represents a phenomenological study on how women endow meaning to their scarred bodies after breast cancer treatment. Data collection consisted of multiple interviews with 10 women who had mastectomy, and 9 women who had breast-saving surgery. Against the background of the phenomenological premise that one's body can appear to oneself in various ways, we identified meaningful differences between experiences that go together with one's body "at a distance" and experiences that go together with one's body's "closeness." The diversity in body experiences we have revealed in our study calls for reconsidering the prejudiced critique of the "body as object" in mainstream phenomenology of health care, and invites medical professionals to develop the ability to recognize different perspectives on embodiment.

No abstract

Global health ethics is a relatively new term that is used to conceptualize the process of applying moral value to health issues that are typically characterized by a global level effect or require action coordinated at a global level. It is important to acknowledge that this account of global health ethics takes a predominantly geographic approach and may infer that the subject relates primarily to macro-level health phenomena. However, global health ethics could alternatively be thought of as another branch of health ethics. It may then relate to specific topics in themselves, which might also include micro-level health phenomena. In its broadest sense, global health ethics is a normative project that is best characterized by the challenge of developing common values and universal norms for responding to global health threats. Consequently, many subjects fall within its scope. Whilst several accounts of global health ethics have been conceptualized in the literature, a concise demarcation of the paradigm is still needed. Through means of a literature review, this paper presents a two-part introduction to global health ethics. First, the framework of ‘borrowed’ ethics that currently form the core of global health ethics is discussed in relation to two essential ethical considerations: 1) what is the moral significance of health and 2) what is the moral significance of boundaries? Second, a selection of exemplar ethical topics is presented to illustrate the range of topics within global health ethics.