Comparison and contrasting the Meikirch Model and Hodges' model

Learning of another conceptual framework, which helpfully is also described as a model, there is a website, publications and illustrations (well executed PNGs). Enter, the Meikirch Model:

Bircher J. und Hahn E. G., Will the Meikirch Model, a New Framework for Health, Induce a Paradigm Shift in Healthcare? Cureus 9(3): e1081. DOI 10.7759/cureus.1081

The title of the paper is impressive, and on reflection worthy because we really do need a paradigm shift in healthcare. 

How to achieve universal health coverage and do so sustainably? In turn, how to realise the Sustainable Development Goals, while having regards the dependencies, determinants of health? For Hodges' model this is factored in by Brian (Hodges') recognising the political in situations including health. (So, I would argue that the required paradigm shift extends much further, but more on that to follow.)

Below I will review some of the main arguments, facets, and principles of the Meikirch Model, drawing from their website: https://meikirch-modell.ch

 
Meikirch Model: Overview

The Meikirch begins with 'demands of life':

"Each living creature has to fulfill the demands life puts on him or her. In man these demands include biological, psychosocial and environmental shares."

From the outset the INDIVIDUAL being - as a living creature (hence animals, flora too?) is highlighted - as per the individual - self, in Hodges' model. Maslow's hierarchy is presented too in stressing the need for shelter to counter the demands of the environment.

I like the way the individual draws upon 'biological given' and 'personally acquired' "potentials". In Hodges' model the individual's interpersonal development, their intellectual abilities, motivation, attitude, personality and more all contribute to a person's self-actualisation.

Demands of life provides the basis for the Individual in the Meikirch model, as per the figure. In the notes the responsibility of the individual in the extent to which they achieve their potential appears to be emphasized. Responsibility extends to:

• how he or she cultivates the relationship to other human beings.
• how she or he participates with the life of the society.
• how he or she deals with the natural environment.

There is acknowledgement of how the biologically given potential can be reduced, and so:

"may compensate their defects to a large part by further developing their personally acquired potential. "

The Meikirch model is "A new concept of health based on science".

For the Individual, an example is given of type 1 diabetes were the person is able to become an proficient in management of their condition, possibly even an expert - and most likely the expert barring complications (infection ...).

I've blogged (I think!)* and Twi/Xed about the old joke (of course, it is not) of the N.H.S. being a misnomer. It really stands for the "National Ill-Health Service". Since drafting this in February, I'm sure I've heard this again on the radio, amid the ongoing UK election process. The website notes how generally:

"The health care system is 'sick'

This sickness results from a concept of health that is blind itself."

It is also not just just the need for change, as stressed by Meikirch; but how to make the transition to health education, promotion and prevention? Meikirch is a marvellous addition to the argument.

Moving further another common component with Hodges' model is the SOCIETY and social determinants in the Meikirch model, Sociology in Hodges' model. As Profs Bircher and Hahn note, relationships are key:

"The social context of a person encompasses the family, friends, acquaintances, schools, employers, including political institutions. Good lively personal relationships in family and social settings promote health. In contrast, burdensome relationships may compromise health. Whoever damages human relationships, exacerbates the development of the personally acquired potential of affected persons including his own."

The role of the law in the social framework is acknowledged, and how anxiety, greed and abuse can obviously impact on an individual's health. This extends from within the family, community, to the workplace; relationships between employees and managers for example.

Helpfully, society is also responsible for the health of (its) individuals. But this also relies upon mutuality with individuals:

"each individual must also contribute his or her part for a proper functioning of the society."

A reference that links the collaborative nature of society with public health:

Johannes Bircher, Shyama Kuruvilla, Defining health by addressing individual, social, and environmental determinants: New opportunities for health care and public health. Journal of Public Health Policy (2014) 35,363-368. (with link).

The ENVIRONMENT makes up the outer-most ring in the diagram. The Meikirch author's connection with Switzerland is evident in the protective examples of avalanche barriers and a natural deficiency of iodine and fluorine. 

"iodization of cooking and table salt and fluoridation of tooth pastes to prevent thyroid diseases and dental caries. Construction of avalanche barriers and of houses resistant to earthquakes also protects health."

Sadly we have seen backward steps in dental services provision in the UK; and recent earthquakes have demonstrated the tragic consequences of lapse building regulation when buildings 'pancake' in a progressive collapse. 

I contacted the authors https://meikirch-modell.ch/en/authors/ but no response has been received.

I will reflect further - adding a table with concepts related to Hodges' model and discuss the table at: https://meikirch-modell.ch/en/model/

Theories Concerning Health and Disease

Type of thinking

Epistemology

Means for comprehension

Prescientific

Personal experience

Intuition

Scientific: Meikirch-Model

Scientific argumentation

Rational mind

*Salutogenic Perspectives and Supertankers - Public Health