Vestfold University College, Faculty of Health Science, Research Centre for Health Promotion in Settings, Tønsberg, Norway.
Scand J Public Health. 2011 Mar;39(6 Suppl):79-84. doi: 10.1177/1403494810384428.
To contribute to development of global frameworks for health promotion education, by means of constructive criticism of the Galway Consensus Conference Statement (GCCS), and, furthermore, to substantiate that such frameworks must transcend political trends if they are to contribute to the ongoing development of health promotion both as a discipline and as a professional practice. This article is based on a workshop on competence domains in health promotion, held at the Sixth Nordic Health Promotion Research Conference in Gothenburg, Sweden, 20-22 August 2009.
The GCCS's delimitations of health, health promotion, and health promotion ethics is analysed and contrasted with the authors' ongoing experiences from a master's programme in health promotion.
Three important limitations in the GCCS are identified: the GCCS does not promote perspectives on health other than absence of disease, defines no role for health promotion other than disease prevention, and includes no perspectives on ethical challenges for practitioners. The examples from the master's programme illustrate how and why these delimitations are problematic.
Despite its limitations the GCCS has the potential to set a global agenda for health promotion education because of its emphasis on domains of core competencies in health promotion practice. To further this potential the GCCS' context of use should be changed from mainstreaming health promotion into a technology for disease prevention, to enabling dialog between contributors to health promotion with differing political and scientific ideals. Such dialog must relate to tensions and ambiguities experienced by health promotion practitioners in real-life situations.
通过对戈尔韦共识会议声明（GCCS）的建设性批评，为全球健康促进教育框架的发展做出贡献，此外，还必须证明，如果这些框架要为健康促进的持续发展做出贡献，无论是作为一门学科还是作为一种专业实践，它们必须超越政治趋势。本文基于 2009 年 8 月 20 日至 22 日在瑞典哥德堡举行的第六届北欧健康促进研究会议上的健康促进能力领域研讨会。
分析和对比了 GCCS 对健康、健康促进和健康促进伦理的限定，并与作者从健康促进硕士课程中获得的持续经验进行对比。
确定了 GCCS 的三个重要限制：GCCS 不提倡除疾病缺失之外的健康观点，不为健康促进定义除疾病预防之外的角色，也不包括对从业者的伦理挑战的观点。硕士课程的例子说明了这些限定是如何以及为什么存在问题的。
尽管存在局限性，但由于强调健康促进实践的核心能力领域，GCCS 有可能为全球健康促进教育制定议程。为了进一步发挥这种潜力，应该改变 GCCS 的使用背景，从将健康促进纳入疾病预防技术的主流，转变为促进对具有不同政治和科学理想的健康促进贡献者之间的对话。这种对话必须涉及健康促进从业者在现实生活中遇到的紧张局势和模糊性。
