Health promotion in the context of behavioral economics: gender aspects
Research Article
How to Cite
Grigorieva N.S., Сhubarova T.V. Health promotion in the context of behavioral economics: gender aspects. Population. 2020. Vol. 23. No. 2. P. 112-124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19181/population.2020.23.2.10 (in Russ.).
Abstract
The article discusses the gender aspects of health, proceeding from the assumption that taking them into account is likely to increase the effectiveness of motivational measures in the field of forming healthy lifestyles. The methodological basis of this paper is the concept of health promotion supported by WHO that is based on intersectoral and interdisciplinary approaches. It incorporates both a certain system of values, primarily active involvement of people in maintaining their health, and a set of state activities, among which motivating people to healthy lifestyles is important. Behavioral economics as an area of an interdisciplinary research on decision-making substantiates the mechanisms that should be used, among other things, to achieve the goals of healthcare policy, and to solve such problems of modern society as lack of physical activity, tobacco and alcohol abuse, and unhealthy diet. Gender approach that includes gender aspects in the process of analyzing the situation and making political decisions aimed at improving population health becomes a precondition for increasing the effectiveness of motivational measures taken in the interests of promoting the health of citizens. The results of the surveys on the impact of behavioral factors on the health status of the population of Russia conducted by the Russian statistical agency (Rosstat) in 2013 and 2018 were used as a source of empirical data. They made it possible to identify both the differences and the similarities of women and men with regard to behavior motives concerning certain parameters of a healthy lifestyle, namely physical activities and diet. The authors conclude that, despite the importance of using measures aimed at changing behavior, sustainable overcoming of gender stereotypes depends on the intersection of behavioral and socio-economic determinants of health and healthy behavior.
Keywords:
gender approach, healthy lifestyle, health promotion, behavioral economics, gender stereotypes, motivation
References
1. Kulikov О. А. «Ukreplenie zdorov’ya» kak koncepciya: podhody Vsemirnoj Organizacii Zdravoohraneniya i Rossiya [«Health promotion» as a concept: approaches of the World Health Organization and Russia]. Upravlenie zdravoohraneniem [Health Management]. 2015. No. 3. P. 11–27. (in Russ.)
2. Grigorieva N. S., Chubarova T. V. Gendernyye razvilki» zdorov’ya i zdravoohraneniya v Rossii [Gender forks of health and healthcare in Russia]. Zhenshchina v rossijskom obshchestve [Woman in Russian Society]. 2019. No. 3. P. 55–71. (in Russ.)
3. Marmot M., Wilkinson R. G. (eds.) Social Determinants of Health. 2nd Ed. Oxford University Press. 2006. 376 p.
4. Grigorieva N. S., Chubarova T. V. Motivaciya v sisteme gosudarstvennogo regulirovaniya (na primere formirovaniya zdorovogo obraza zhizni [Motivation in the system of State regulation (the case of healthy lifestyles formation]. Gosudarstvennoe upravlenie. Elektronnyj vestnik [Public Administration]. 2018. No. 70. October. P. 194–219. (in Russ.)
5. Voyer B.— G. Nudging’ behaviors in healthcare: insights from behavioral economics. British Journal of Healthcare Management. 2015. No. 21(3). P. 130–135.
6. Blaga O. M, Vasilescu L., Chereches R. M. Use and effectiveness of behavioral economics in interventions for lifestyle risk factors of non-communicable diseases: a systematic review with policy implications. Perspectives in Public Health. 2017. Vol. 138. Iss. 2. P. 100–110.
7. Parkers G., Greenhalgh T., Griffin M., Dent R. Effect on smoking quit rate of telling patients their lung age: the step2quit randomized controlled trial. British Medical Journal. 2008. 336 (7644). Р. 598–600.
8. Chubarova T. V. Sovremennyj paternalizm kak produkt mejnstrima: social’nyye problemy, individual’nye resheniya [Modern paternalism as a mainstream product: social problems, individual solutions]. Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost’ [Social Sciences and Contemporary World]. 2019. No. 6. P. 27–39. (in Russ.)
9. Zdorov’e i zdravoohranenie v gendernom izmerenii [Health and Healthcare in Gender Dimension]. Ed. N. M. Rimashevskaya. Moscow. Sotsial’nyj proekt [Social project]. 2007. P. 19–62 (in Russ.)
10. Khotkina Z. А., Dobrokhleb V. G., Rusanova N. E. Gendernye problemy v Rossii i metodologiya ih analiza [Gender problems in Russia and methodology of their analysis]. Narodonaselenie [Population]. 2018. Vol. 21. No. 4. P. 135–150. (in Russ.)
11. Keleher H. Why build a health promotion evidence base about gender? Health Promotion International. 2004. No. 19(3). P. 277–279.
12. Gelb K., Pederson A., Greaves L. How have health promotion frameworks considered gender? Health Promotion International. 2011. No. 27. P. 445–452.
13. Grigorieva N. S., Chubarova T. V. Gendernyj podhod v zdravoohranenii: Ucheb. posobie. [Gender Approach in Healthcare]. Textbook. Moscow: Al’fa-Print. 2001. P. 18, 110 (in Russ.)
14. Hawkes S., Buse K. Gender and global health: evidence, policy, and inconvenient truths. The Lancet. 2013. Vol. 381. No. 9879. P. 1783–1787.
15. Bohnet I. What Works: Gender Equality by Design. Belknap Press: An imprint of Harvard University Press. 2016. 400 p.
16. Wood W., Eagly A. Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Olson J. M., Zanna M. P. (eds): 2012. Vol. 46. Burlington: Academic Press. P. 55–123.
17. Eckel C., De Oliveira A., Grossman P. J. Gender and negotiation in the small: are women (perceived to be) more cooperative than men? Negot. 2008. No. 24, P. 429–445.
18. Solnick S. Gender differences in the ultimatum game. Economic Inquiry. 2001. Vol. 39. Iss. 2. P. 189 – 200.
19. Loewenstein G. Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1996. Vol. 65. No. 3. P. 272–292.
20. Fu Jingcheng, Zhong Songfa, Visceral influences and gender difference in competitiveness. 2019. December 16. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3341678 (Accessed: 17 March 2020)
21. Nickels N., Konrad Kubicki K., Maestripieri D. Sex differences in the effects of psychosocial stress on cooperative and prosocial behavior: Evidence for ‘Flight or Fight’ in males and ‘Tend and Befriend’ in females. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology. 2017. P. 171–183.
22. Croson R., Gneezy U. Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature. 2009. 47 (2). P. 448–474.
23. Nelson J. Not-so-strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. Feminist Economics. 2016. Vol. 22:2. P. 114–142.
24. Ranehill E., Weber R. A. Do gender preference gaps impact policy outcomes? Available at https:EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hhs: gunwpe:0713 (Accessed: 12 March 2020).
25. Duflo E. Women empowerment and economic development. Journal of Economic Literature. 2012. No. 50(4). P. 1051–1079.
26. Stronks K., van de Mheen H., Dike L. et al. Behavioural and structural factors in the explanation of socio-economic inequalities in health: an empirical analysis. Sociology of Health and Illness. 1996. Vol.18. Iss. 5. P. 653–674.
27. Pautova N. S., Pautov I. S. Gendernyye osobennosti samoocenki zdorov’ya i yego vospriyatiya kak sociokul’turnoj cennosti: (po dannym 21-j volny RLMS-HSE) [Gender characteristics of health self-assessment and perception as a socio-cultural value (Based on the data from the 21st round of RLMS-HSE)]. Zhenshchina v rossijskom obshchestve [Woman in Russian Society]. 2015. No. 2(75). P. 60–75. (in Russ.)
2. Grigorieva N. S., Chubarova T. V. Gendernyye razvilki» zdorov’ya i zdravoohraneniya v Rossii [Gender forks of health and healthcare in Russia]. Zhenshchina v rossijskom obshchestve [Woman in Russian Society]. 2019. No. 3. P. 55–71. (in Russ.)
3. Marmot M., Wilkinson R. G. (eds.) Social Determinants of Health. 2nd Ed. Oxford University Press. 2006. 376 p.
4. Grigorieva N. S., Chubarova T. V. Motivaciya v sisteme gosudarstvennogo regulirovaniya (na primere formirovaniya zdorovogo obraza zhizni [Motivation in the system of State regulation (the case of healthy lifestyles formation]. Gosudarstvennoe upravlenie. Elektronnyj vestnik [Public Administration]. 2018. No. 70. October. P. 194–219. (in Russ.)
5. Voyer B.— G. Nudging’ behaviors in healthcare: insights from behavioral economics. British Journal of Healthcare Management. 2015. No. 21(3). P. 130–135.
6. Blaga O. M, Vasilescu L., Chereches R. M. Use and effectiveness of behavioral economics in interventions for lifestyle risk factors of non-communicable diseases: a systematic review with policy implications. Perspectives in Public Health. 2017. Vol. 138. Iss. 2. P. 100–110.
7. Parkers G., Greenhalgh T., Griffin M., Dent R. Effect on smoking quit rate of telling patients their lung age: the step2quit randomized controlled trial. British Medical Journal. 2008. 336 (7644). Р. 598–600.
8. Chubarova T. V. Sovremennyj paternalizm kak produkt mejnstrima: social’nyye problemy, individual’nye resheniya [Modern paternalism as a mainstream product: social problems, individual solutions]. Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost’ [Social Sciences and Contemporary World]. 2019. No. 6. P. 27–39. (in Russ.)
9. Zdorov’e i zdravoohranenie v gendernom izmerenii [Health and Healthcare in Gender Dimension]. Ed. N. M. Rimashevskaya. Moscow. Sotsial’nyj proekt [Social project]. 2007. P. 19–62 (in Russ.)
10. Khotkina Z. А., Dobrokhleb V. G., Rusanova N. E. Gendernye problemy v Rossii i metodologiya ih analiza [Gender problems in Russia and methodology of their analysis]. Narodonaselenie [Population]. 2018. Vol. 21. No. 4. P. 135–150. (in Russ.)
11. Keleher H. Why build a health promotion evidence base about gender? Health Promotion International. 2004. No. 19(3). P. 277–279.
12. Gelb K., Pederson A., Greaves L. How have health promotion frameworks considered gender? Health Promotion International. 2011. No. 27. P. 445–452.
13. Grigorieva N. S., Chubarova T. V. Gendernyj podhod v zdravoohranenii: Ucheb. posobie. [Gender Approach in Healthcare]. Textbook. Moscow: Al’fa-Print. 2001. P. 18, 110 (in Russ.)
14. Hawkes S., Buse K. Gender and global health: evidence, policy, and inconvenient truths. The Lancet. 2013. Vol. 381. No. 9879. P. 1783–1787.
15. Bohnet I. What Works: Gender Equality by Design. Belknap Press: An imprint of Harvard University Press. 2016. 400 p.
16. Wood W., Eagly A. Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Olson J. M., Zanna M. P. (eds): 2012. Vol. 46. Burlington: Academic Press. P. 55–123.
17. Eckel C., De Oliveira A., Grossman P. J. Gender and negotiation in the small: are women (perceived to be) more cooperative than men? Negot. 2008. No. 24, P. 429–445.
18. Solnick S. Gender differences in the ultimatum game. Economic Inquiry. 2001. Vol. 39. Iss. 2. P. 189 – 200.
19. Loewenstein G. Out of control: Visceral influences on behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1996. Vol. 65. No. 3. P. 272–292.
20. Fu Jingcheng, Zhong Songfa, Visceral influences and gender difference in competitiveness. 2019. December 16. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3341678 (Accessed: 17 March 2020)
21. Nickels N., Konrad Kubicki K., Maestripieri D. Sex differences in the effects of psychosocial stress on cooperative and prosocial behavior: Evidence for ‘Flight or Fight’ in males and ‘Tend and Befriend’ in females. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology. 2017. P. 171–183.
22. Croson R., Gneezy U. Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature. 2009. 47 (2). P. 448–474.
23. Nelson J. Not-so-strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking. Feminist Economics. 2016. Vol. 22:2. P. 114–142.
24. Ranehill E., Weber R. A. Do gender preference gaps impact policy outcomes? Available at https:EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hhs: gunwpe:0713 (Accessed: 12 March 2020).
25. Duflo E. Women empowerment and economic development. Journal of Economic Literature. 2012. No. 50(4). P. 1051–1079.
26. Stronks K., van de Mheen H., Dike L. et al. Behavioural and structural factors in the explanation of socio-economic inequalities in health: an empirical analysis. Sociology of Health and Illness. 1996. Vol.18. Iss. 5. P. 653–674.
27. Pautova N. S., Pautov I. S. Gendernyye osobennosti samoocenki zdorov’ya i yego vospriyatiya kak sociokul’turnoj cennosti: (po dannym 21-j volny RLMS-HSE) [Gender characteristics of health self-assessment and perception as a socio-cultural value (Based on the data from the 21st round of RLMS-HSE)]. Zhenshchina v rossijskom obshchestve [Woman in Russian Society]. 2015. No. 2(75). P. 60–75. (in Russ.)
Article
Received: 23.03.2020
Accepted: 17.06.2020
Citation Formats
Other cite formats:
APA
Grigorieva, N. S., & СhubarovaT. V. (2020). Health promotion in the context of behavioral economics: gender aspects. Population, 23(2), 112-124. https://doi.org/10.19181/population.2020.23.2.10
Section
ESTIMATION OF POVERTY AND WAYS TO ITS REDUCTION
