As regulars here will be aware I've been wondering what Hodges' model might learn from other conceptual frameworks produced around the world. ... When I first read the following blog title - 'World Health Care Blog'
I thought - 'World Health Care' - now this sounds really interesting.
Unfortunately, upon investigation the world health contextual cupboard was bare.I looked again at the label.
I looked in the tin.
I'm sorry, but from the top-down this blog proved a disappointment.
It's not that I was expecting a paper on world health care models or frameworks.
Don't get me wrong the business (economic, industry) world of health care is essential (reading) for those who want to stride - not step - from today into the future. Health care has been commodified for ages, for all ages. To be fair the 'subtitle' and 'about' statement makes the focus of the blog very clear. From the bottom-up there is clearly content to satisfy the ardent business-info-addict with posts and contributions from leading players.
Maybe it's me and my digital preoccupation has regressed to hairs; but this title IS imho very misleading. How so? Well from the perspective of world health care business-industry insiders all seems well with the-ir world. Meanwhile, non-'business' visitors like this one, may spend their visit exercising ruined expectations. (If the target audience is specific then somebody had better go sort the stage and the sights: there's still a debate to had.)
'Stuck' (and essentially 'skint') as I am here in Lancashire, UK I can't exactly throw stones. Hodges' model is a small - very tasty - fruit (when ripe!) with four (or five) kernels possessed of global - world health aspirations. We need global conceptual frameworks for health and social care and education.
Browsing the 'World health Care Blog' and searching for 'world health' revealed posts totally unrelated to what many people would consider the real issues surrounding 'world health'. There are posts on global health funding and global health program, India, Mexico, Thailand.
At the time of writing 'World Health Care' is not even listed as a category. Try 'poverty'...?
Perhaps 'world health' is implied in the content, but is this sufficient given the title?
Noting the sponsor perhaps there's a risk of confusing or conflating 'World Health Care - Congress' with 'World Health Care'?
The World Health Care Blog is not listed on the main Corante site, so perhaps this blog is off the beaten track?
All this makes we wonder about Google-SEO ranking and semantic web weighting? [Actually, where does (will) the weight of blog, website, and Web 2.0-3.0 application purposes and titles feature on the semantic web?]
'Corante' may have been the world's first English language newspaper, but *global health care* comprises a multitude of languages that must be given a voice. Especially as many of those languages are threatened species (including Danish).
There is an interesting brief video clip by Dr Anil Kumar (Well said Sir!)
I realise of course that many contributors and agencies at the World Health Care Blog and Congress will be greatly involved in major world-wide humanitarian and philanthropic projects. The concern is one of impressions.... Reflecting on the meaning of 'world health' and the inclusion of these term(s) might pay great dividends in terms of publicity, balance, governance, corporate and social responsibility.
So, come on Corante if you - as blog managers - insist on this title, on this stage then pick up the theme of 'World Health Care' holistically - you know you want to.... since after all
Corante = Enactor
'To act (something) out, as on a stage: enacted the part of the parent.' http://www.answers.com/enactor&r=67
Lead the way...
All trademarks acknowledged.
At Manchester airport in May I noticed Web Design Essentials (WDE). Reasons of cost £14.99 and weight meant it was put back on the news stand. The content was excellent! Back in the UK a week later, no sign of it in the supermarket. I found a copy this week at WH Smiths and made the 'investment' - a belated holiday treat.