# data[].attributes.body
One’s physical health may not necessarily be the result of their actions.
For example, the country one lives in can affect accessibility and affordability of health services, which can affect their ability to improve their physical health. In America, where healthcare is more expensive, it is harder to get treatment for ailments, whereas in Canada, it’s easier to get the treatment needed, as the cost is in the form of taxes already paid. Governments are also responsible for providing facilities to aid in one’s improvement of physical health, and for encouraging others to do so.
An individual’s status - socially and economically - can also affect one’s physical health. Those who are worse off financially may not be able to find the time to dedicate to exercise, and may not have access to healthier options for food and resort to cheaper instant or junk foods. Having less money will also affect their access to health services. Those who have a lower social status will not have as much access to insurance and have less income, affecting their access to healthcare. They are also more likely to live in poorer living conditions, thus negatively affecting their physical health.
There are also factors related to how well one does in school and work - if they have the extra time required to take care of their physical health in an attempt to improve it. However, in most cases, individuals do not have the extra time after work to exercise or perform healthier habits, even though some habits can be implemented in daily life, it may still take longer than what they have done - which could be less healthy in comparison, like eating fast food instead of preparing an entire healthy meal by themselves which is extremely time consuming.
Thus, it can be concluded that it is not just the individual which is in control of their health, but also their situation and surrounding environment.

# data[].attributes.body
When it comes to our physical health, many factors come into play. Some people may be unable to make rational decisions due to mental incompetency, or they may suffer from disorders that limit their ability to make rational health decisions. Furthermore, genetics play a major role; for example, if their forefather had diabetes, which is inherited, they may also have a higher chance of contracting it. Because individuals can't control their genetic makeup, we should not hold them responsible for their health.

Similarly, the physical environment has an impact on your health. People who live in cities are more likely to be surrounded by fast-food restaurants. Since fast-food restaurants may be more readily accessible to them, they may find it more inconvenient to travel just to get healthy foods. Because of their surroundings, they might be more easily influenced by their convenience.

In addition to convenience, there is irresponsible marketing involved, which might make fast food restaurants seem more glamorous than they are. One example would be Mcdonalds, which has marketing programmes like happy meals to attract consumers, and new burgers  which are created  frequently. This would captivate young consumers to purchase these happy meals, as sometimes they come along with toys that come in a collection. So they would buy many happy meals, collect all the toys, and complete the time-limited collections. Therefore it may not necessarily be an individual’s responsibility, it’s normal to succumb to temptations, we’re humans. Individuals do play a major role in maintaining their physical health, they can control their choices. But they should not entirely be held responsible for it.

# data[].attributes.body
The government and private sectors have played a major role in this regard but it is up to us to take personal responsibility for our physical health. For example, the government is starting to build more fitness centres to ensure that citizens are fit and healthy. However, it is also the citizen’s responsibility to take initiative to use these fitness centres/corners and exercise to ensure that they stay healthy. Also, the government has also started to make some shows and advertisements to educate us about the methods to maintain our physical health. I feel that when the government educates us through these videos, it is our individual responsibility to take action and imply these ways. In Singapore, the government has made a YouTube channel called “GetActiveTV” which educates viewers on ways to stay healthy and fit. Using these examples can help us learn ways to exercise and allow citizens to take responsibility for their physical health .

# data[].attributes.body
1. Everybody in the group will paste a website/video link that is part of your research.

2. In a few sentences, explain the gist of the article/ video.

# data[].attributes.body
2. In about 80 -100 words, come with a body paragraph that supports your thesis statements.
Remember to write in PEEL.

3. Find a picture that best explains your point too.

# data[].attributes.body
https://theconversation.com/our-cities-are-making-us-fat-and-unhealthy-a-healthy-location-index-can-help-us-plan-better-179763
People often think that we are responsible for our own health, however, I beg to differ. There are some things that are beyond our control, such as our genetics and physical environments. In cities, people are surrounded with fast food restaurants, causing them to pick fast food over healthy foods as it is more easily available . The lack of access to healthy fruits and vegetables due to the obesogenic environment of cities caused people to be unhealthy. Thus, i do not think that an indivisual is ultimately responsible for their physical health as they are unable to control their physical environments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As councils and central government consider what cities of the future will look like, a new tool has been developed to map how various features of where we live influence public health.

The Healthy Location Index (HLI) breaks down healthy and unhealthy elements in cities across New Zealand. It offers important lessons for how we plan and modify our cities to increase physical activity levels and tackle important issues such as obesity and mental health.

The obesogenic environment

New Zealand has one of the highest numbers of adults living with obesity in the world and the rates are not improving. Data from 2021 showed a substantial increase in both childhood and adult obesity from the previous year.

Obesity is a major public health concern that is estimated to be responsible for approximately 5% of all global deaths annually. The global economic impact of obesity is estimated at roughly US$2 trillion or 2.8% of global GDP.

Health issues like this are often thought of in terms of personal responsibility. However, this approach diverts focus away from health systems, governments and physical environments.

The global rise in obesity since 1980 has occurred too rapidly for genetic or biological factors to be its root cause. Instead, it may actually just be a normal response to environments that provide easy access to energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods and a range of unhealthy options that require us expending very little energy.

Read more: Before pregnancy even starts, healthy weight in mums and dads lowers obesity risk in children

Think about it: maintaining good health in our current environment requires a lot of effort. Why? Because healthy choices are often more difficult than convenient ones, be that trying to avoid fast-food outlets or conveniently placed liqour stores, the lack of access to fresh fruit and vegetables, or deciding to cycle rather than drive the car.

This is known as an obesogenic environment and it needs to change.

The Healthy Location Index

This change begins with an understanding of how things currently stand, which is where the HLI comes in.

Data used in our index includes quantifying access to five "health-constraining" features: fast-food outlets, takeaway outlets, dairies and convenience stores, alcohol outlets and gaming venues.

We also quantify five "health-promoting" features: green spaces, blue spaces (accessible outdoor water environments), physical activity facilities, fruit and vegetable outlets, and supermarkets.

Read more: Higher-density cities need greening to stay healthy and liveable

The index provides a rank for every neighbourhood in New Zealand based on access to these positive and negative features.

Out of New Zealand's three major urban regions, Wellington shows highly accessible health-promoting and health-constraining environments, Auckland offers relatively balanced environments, and Christchurch shows a high proportion of people living in more health-constraining environments.

Environmental injustice

The bigger picture created by the HLI supports previous evidence highlighting a disproportionate number of features that constrain health, such as fast-food outlets and liqour stores in socioeconomically deprived areas.

Of particular concern in the most deprived areas, the distance to health-constraining features was half what it was in the the least deprived areas, highlighting the persistent over-provision of gambling outlets and liqour stores in some parts of the country.

This phenomenon is well known as a form of "environmental injustice" which ultimately stems from a lack of equity in the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.

The index also highlights how areas of New Zealand with quick and easy access to health-constraining features are worse off in terms of both mental and physical health outcomes such as depression and type II diabetes.

While the index shows clear evidence that, on average, the most deprived areas of New Zealand often have access to health-constraining features, this finding is not universal. It also varies from place to place.

Wellington and Christchurch both have a decreasing number of health-promoting environments, with growing deprivation. However, there are remarkably more health-constraining places in Christchurch than in Wellington.

Knowledge offers a way to change

This is only our first iteration of the index and we intend to add more features in the future. But we hope the data provided in the index can encourage important conversations to help us better understand how our cities are shaped.

We need to ask whether we really need that additional fast-food outlet or liquor store in the same neighbourhood. We hope the index can help policy makers consider how to shape more health-friendly cities by regulating or adding the right features.

After all, the protection and promotion of public health is a core responsibility of government and it should not be left to individuals, families or communities to create such changes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Our cities are making us fat and unhealthy - a 'healthy location index' can help us plan better

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As councils and central government consider what cities of the future will look like, a new tool has been developed to map how various features of where we live influence public health. The Healthy Location Index (HLI) breaks down healthy and unhealthy elements in cities across New Zealand.

# data[].attributes.body
It is not fully up to an individual to maintain a good physical health.
An individual can have the motivation to improve themselves, as staying healthy is a good way to live life. You do not have to go to checkups as often and you are able to enjoy the benefits of keeping fit. However, the question remains if we are responsible for our own physical health. We would argue that we are not fully responsible for our own physical health as without proper aid from the government or other third parties, an individual may not be able to truly stay healthy. For example, if the government places many fast-food outlets throughout a city, people would have no choice but to eat these unhealthy meals. People would not be able to find places that serve healthy meals that meets their expectations, and would just resort to eating whatever is conveniently placed closest to them. Therefore, it is not extensively the responsibility of the individual themselves to maintain a good physical health.

# data[].attributes.body
Although social efforts such as promoting health through education are a factor to an individual's health,it is still one’s choice to have good physical health.It is their responsibility to maintain their health.people still wait friends or parents to force them to start taking action asthey think consequences will either not be severe or not happen so early.But consequences such as diabetes can be irreversible in it is too late.In the UK,there are an estimated 3.2 million people with diabetes, already one million more than ten years ago, and the number is predicted to reach four million by 2025.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Photo By )

Whose responsibility is our health? Government? Employers? The food and drink industry? Ourselves? Whereas one person might be comfortable to hand over control of his well-being to others, the next person may not.

Whatever New Statesman readers may think, there is one fact that cannot be ignored: too many of us are eating too much, drinking too much, smoking and not doing enough physical activity - and that is beginning to take its toll on our health and our health-care system.

There are an estimated 3.2 million people with diabetes in the UK, already one million more than ten years ago, and the figure is predicted to reach four million by 2025. There are now more than 3,000 alcohol-related admissions to A&E every day. One in five adults still smokes. Almost two-thirds of adults are overweight or obese, and, shockingly, so, too, are a growing number of children. Fewer than one in ten children are obese when they enter reception class, but by the time they're in year six, that figure is nearly one in five.

The NHS is bearing the brunt of this. As it states in the Five Year Forward Review: "As the 'stock' of population health risk gets worse, the 'flow' of costly NHS treatments increases as a consequence . . . Put bluntly, as the nation's waistline keeps piling on the pounds, we're piling on billions of pounds in future taxes just to pay for preventable illnesses."

Quite rightly, the NHS strategy places considerable focus on prevention. It makes more sense to roll out a national programme of intensive lifestyle intervention programmes than it does to spend more money on dealing with the health complications stemming from an unhealthy lifestyle. A key ambition of the NHS, therefore, is to "become the first country to implement at scale a national evidence-based diabetes prevention programme modelled on proven UK and international models, and linked where appropriate to the new Health Check. NHS England and Public Health England will establish a preventative services programme that will then expand evidence-based action to other conditions".

But does the public understand its own role in this prevention strategy? Research shows there are contradictions at play that need to be addressed if significant results are to be achieved. For example, a recent report published by Philips, Picture of Health, shows that UK adults and health-care professionals both agree that preventing poor health is the responsibility of the person in question. However, only 38 per cent of professionals believe patients understand that prevention is better than cure, despite patients reporting the opposite. Indeed, at present, less than half of UK adults are actively managing their health. All of this shows there is a clear disconnect between what they think they should do and what they actually do, and that it is time for people to engage actively with their health.

"If you look at the different age groups, millennials are very actively monitoring their own health but they're a bit confused as to what they can do with the data [that their apps and health trackers provide]. Conversely, the 55-to-65-year-old cohort are very confident that they're managing their health in a big way but when you actually ask them what they're doing, they say that they weigh themselves, brush their teeth and visit their doctor occasionally, which is not particularly active engagement when it comes to managing your health," said Sean Hughes, vice-president of design at Philips, speaking at a recent event hosted by the RSA called "Our Health: Who Cares?".

Overall, less than half (45 per cent) of British adults say they are actively managing their health. Of those who aren't, a quarter (26 per cent) know they should be more active but don't have a strong desire to be so, and 8 per cent admit they just don't do it.

Of course, all sections of our society have a responsibility for our health in one way or another, be it food manufacturers reducing salt and sugar in our food, local authorities seeking to limit junk-food outlets near schools, or employers ensuring positive well-being in the workplace - and this was reflected in the Philips research. About half (48 per cent) of respondents felt that corporations, such as the food and drink industry, should bear responsibility for our health, closely followed by the NHS (46 per cent) and educators (39 per cent). One in three (32 per cent) believe the onus lies on the media, while (22 per cent) think it is their employers' responsibility.

Again, age influenced opinion. Millennials were much more likely to see other actors playing an active role in public health, half (50 per cent) of them believing that legislation could be a positive move. This was in contrast to most adults, of whom only a third (37 per cent) felt that the government should legislate. Meanwhile, many more health-care professionals were in favour of legislation - some 64 per cent of primary and 55 per cent of secondary health-care professionals would support new laws.

In general, British adults have a reactive outlook on making meaningful lifestyle changes. Most (71 per cent) waited until they had physical symptoms or were given a warning by their doctor (69 per cent). Very few are motivated by others; only 22 per cent said seeing a friend or family member experience a health problem would prompt them to change their behaviour and just 11 per cent would be inspired to change after seeing a friend or family member take charge of their own health.

"There is an interesting aspect in the report in terms of who's responsible for prompting people to actually think [about their health]. We probably all believe that it's everybody - individual, community, industry, third sector, local and national government - but it really has to be a whole system change," said Tim Chadborn, behavioural insights lead researcher at Public Health England, who also spoke at the RSA event. He gave examples from within the NHS of initiatives such as the NHS Health Check programme, which invites people to talk to a trained health-care worker about their diet and physical activity, and Making Every Contact Count, which encourages health-care workers to stress the importance of prevention when they see members of the public. "For instance, we know that if someone is a smoker and goes to see a doctor and the doctor doesn't ask about their smoking, they're actually less likely to quit," he said.

Knowledge is power

Individuals can be greatly helped by knowing what options they have, what these cost the taxpayer in terms of time and money, and how they may affect their ability to work and play. Better education clearly should play a part in the strategy.

Brits have already indicated they are hungry for information: three-quarters have gathered information about health and wellness from more than one source in the past year (primarily health-related websites). Seventy-one per cent of those who use connected devices and apps to track their health believe technology has empowered them to take control of their well-being. In addition, younger adults feel that their ability to manage their health would be boosted by support from professionals, such as a health, nutrition or fitness expert (36 per cent); by consistent information and advice from experts (33 per cent); by guidance on how to put information into practice (30 per cent); and by personalised consultations and treatments from their doctor (28 per cent).

Providing people with the tools they need to take control is vital, says Tim Kelsey, NHS national director for patients and information, who believes access to data is at the heart of this.

"From this April we've become the first country in the world to offer all our citizens access to GP records, online bookings, repeat prescriptions . . . The public is ready and willing: we just need to get ready to give them more control when they want it," he said at the RSA event.

Philips's Hughes concurs: "We believe we can break free from the inertia of inaction by connecting people and professionals with accurate and personalised health data. This, combined with solutions that keep healthy people well longer and aiding people to manage health at home, is the key to a hearty and better future for us all."

A similar sentiment comes from within the NHS itself. Some 62 per cent of primary and 69 per cent of secondary health-care professionals believe that access to health data is a patient's right and that individuals should have access to more of it. Indeed, 55 per cent felt that being given such access would increase patients' sense of responsibility for their health.

A problem shared is a problem halved

It seems obvious that the job of clinicians and the health-care system is to take care of people when they are sick, but when the impact of every individual patient case is considered as a whole - and we see the implications this has for budgets, staffing, volume of services and so on - it becomes clear that responsibility for our nation's health has to be shared, so that the NHS is not required to shoulder the whole burden alone.

Creating the type of environment that empowers and supports people to make informed, balanced choices will help them lead healthier lives, and will go a long way towards maintaining the health of the NHS itself.

This article is part of a thought-provoking series on living health, brought to you by New Statesman in association with Philips, that looks at how technology, innovation and big data are helping to improve your health and our health-care system.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whose responsibility is our health? Government? Employers? The food and drink industry? Ourselves? Whereas one person might be comfortable to hand over control of his well-being to others, the next person may not.

# data[].attributes.body
Even when one works hard to eat healthy and works hard to keep up a healthy lifestyle, that may be challenging as they may not live near stalls that sell healthier foods or may not have the money to as healthy foods could get expensive. In Singapore, they mainly eat hawker food. Among these hawker dishes, chicken rice, satay and char kway teow are Singapore’s top three favourites which indicates that over 80% of Singaporeans enjoy these foods, according to a poll done by “YouGov” run by the government. These foods are not considered as healthy foods as seen from the “HealthXChange” website run by health experts that researched about foods in Singapore. Whereas foods that are considered healthier like Frog Porridge, Lor Mee and Mee Soto are disliked among Singaporeans where less than 70% of Singaporeans enjoy consuming these foods Since the unhealthier foods are Singaporeans’ favourites, there are more hawkers that would likely set-up business compared to hawkers setting up stalls for these these less-liked food at the market where Singaporeans are most commonly seen eating and chatting. Thus, it may be tough to find healthier foods to eat on a daily basis.

Source:
https://sg.yougov.com/en-sg/news/2019/08/13/classic-singaporean-cuisine-ranked-singaporeans/
https://www.healthxchange.sg/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Singaporeans are a big fan of their own food. A recent YouGov survey found that 96% of Singaporeans enjoy their own national cuisine. Latest YouGov research delves deeper into that statistic and reveals the popularity of 50 classic Singaporean foods.
Savoury
Hainanese chicken rice top the savoury list, with 89% of Singaporeans who have tried them saying that they liked it. It is followed closely by satay (87%) and popiah (86%).

Other top dishes according to the public includes char kuay teow (86%), nasi lemak (84%) and chai tow kway (84%).

At the very bottom of the list is frog porridge. Although 82% of Singaporeans have tried the adventurous dish, only 50% of those who have tried the cooked amphibian meal say they have a taste for it. Frog porridge is particular popular amongst those aged 45 to 54, with 59% saying they like it, compared to 39% of those aged 18 to 24.

Lor mee comes second from the bottom, with only 63% of those who have tried the noodle dish liking it.

There is also a difference in taste preferences depending on age. Younger Singaporeans (18 to 24 years old) are more likely to enjoy roti prata than older Singaporeans (aged 55 and above) (96% vs. 81%). While older Singaporeans are more likely to enjoy cheng tng than younger Singaporeans (82% vs. 45%).
Sweet
Turning to the sweet list, the results find tau huay sitting in the Top-Tier, with 84% of Singaporeans say they like it. It is the only dessert in the Top-Tier.

Following tau huay in the High-Tier is fruit and vegetable salad rojak (81%) and traditional breakfast kaya toast (76%).

Other top desserts include chee cheong fun (79%), mee chiang kueh (76%), chendol (75%) and pineapple tarts (71%).

Ang ku kueh comes in at the bottom, with only 61% of those who have ever tasted it saying they enjoyed the experience. The traditional Chinese dessert is unsurprisingly more popular amongst Chinese people (with 63% liking it) than Malays (55%) or Indians (44%).

Data shows that men are also more likely than women to enjoy goreng pisang (71% vs. 65%) and chendol (79% vs. 70%). Whereas women are more likely to enjoy ondeh ondeh (76% vs. 69%).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Classic Singaporean cuisine ranked by Singaporeans

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Singaporeans are a big fan of their own food. A recent YouGov survey found that 96% of Singaporeans enjoy their own national cuisine. Latest YouGov research delves deeper into that statistic and reveals the popularity of 50 classic Singaporean foods.

# data[].attributes.body
(Adapted from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0066204)

People who have lower social and economic status, lower education qualifications, and lower positions in their job are more likely to have worse physical health than those of the opposite - especially those coming from a more privileged family background.

# data[].attributes.body
If health is of such importance, whose responsibility is it? To answer this question, we need to know various dimensions of health. Health is defined by WHO as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely absence of disease or infirmity. There are physical and mental aspects of personal health as well as social health which needs to be considered when we assign responsibility for health. So health becomes a responsibility of various stakeholders who have different roles to play at various levels.

To a major extent, in this way, health is a personal responsibility. “Health can’t be given, it is earned and maintained,” puts this notion in a very effective way. People need to make efforts to maintain their health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Health is wealth is a very old proverb. It can be interpreted in many ways. To give an example, it can be inferred that without health there is no meaning to wealth. In another way, it can be interpreted as health is a form of wealth, as money, land or any other asset is. Another phrase of Latin origin translated as "a healthy body in a healthy mind" emphasizes the importance of a healthy body to have good mental and psychological health. There are many such phrases in all languages of the world which essentially point towards the importance of health.

If health is of such importance, whose responsibility is it? To answer this question, we need to know various dimensions of health. Health is defined by WHO as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely absence of disease or infirmity. There are physical and mental aspects of personal health as well as social health which needs to be considered when we assign responsibility for health. So health becomes a responsibility of various stakeholders who have different roles to play at various levels.

To a major extent, in this way, health is a personal responsibility. "Health can't be given, it is earned and maintained," puts this notion in a very effective way. People need to make efforts to maintain their health. Some of the aspects which make this evident that individuals are responsible for their health are as follows:-

1) Maintaining a personal diet: one can't expect someone else to dictate what kind of diet he/she has. One should properly appropriate nutritious foods to one's diet and avoid having harmful food items in his/her diet. E.g. pizza, burgers and similar fast food items.

2) Having proper sleep is a must. It is recommended that an adult should have around 7 hours of sleep every day. This again can be enforced by anyone else.

3) Doing regular exercises can keep physical stress away and stimulate the blood flow essential for cells to get oxygen. This also is a personal choice and can be taken care of by an individual.

4) Keeping a check on one's weight: regularly checking weight and planning one's diet & exercise accordingly is something very necessary to avoid many illnesses. This again is an individual's responsibility.

5) Avoiding consumption of alcohol, smoking and other such activities harmful to one's health.

6) Maintaining personal hygiene: at a personal level, one can do his/her bit by maintaining personal hygiene.

7) Similarly having medical check-ups, seeking medical help when sick are all one's responsibility towards ensuring his/her health. Family planning is another aspect where it is better to give the choice to the individuals. This means it is also an individual responsibility.

Certain aspects of health can't be maintained by one's acts. They need a broader responsibility. Some of them fall under the community's responsibilities:-

1) Cases of pandemic stress the importance of community responsibility. One can't expect by maintaining personal hygiene, he/she wouldn't get affected by viral diseases including the recent Corona virus. The example of malaria also stresses the responsibility of the community in maintaining public sanitation.

2) The community is responsible for proper waste disposal. If any individual is disposing of his/her waste properly but his/her neighbours aren't, it would still impact on the health of the person.

3) Community plays an important role in maintaining health. They can provide healthy surroundings for an individual to grow to his/her fullest extent.

Community's participation in planning, funding and executing thus becomes important and can be ensured in the following ways:-

a. By providing human power to the planning and executing activities.

b. By providing logistics support for the same.

c. By using the services to the full extent for their benefits. E.g. using hospitals whenever needed and demanding medicines from government hospitals at proper prices as listed by the government.

d. By evaluating the services provided through various mechanisms. E.g. the social audits of PHC's working.

It is not always easy to engage the community in the process of planning, execution and evaluation because this faces resistance from the medical professionals. If community participation is ensured, most of the malpractices of the medical professionals can be checked.

Last but a big responsibility to maintain the health is of governments. In India, it is stated in the directive principles of state policies that state should make provisions for the health services for the society. The state has major responsibilities in the following ways:-

1) Making policies for society's better health and overall well-being.

2) Making provisions for public access to health services.

3) Making legislations to regulate the private sector's involvement in health so that it does not become exploitative. Ayushman Bharat Yojna is one such step where the government has gone for a public-private partnership to provide private sector healthcare benefits to the poor.

In this way, it can be concluded that health is a holistic concept and is everyone's responsibility. The responsibilities start from an individual and extend up to the communities and governments as well. Certain aspects of health, including diet, fitness and personal hygiene, have to be dealt with individually. Government and community can support them with the proper information and resources. Some other aspects including community sanitation and public hygiene have to be taken care of by communities and governments.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Health is wealth is a very old proverb. It can be interpreted in many ways.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Health: An Individual or Societal Responsibility?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abstract This paper aims to discuss the current issue on responsibility on health and its effect on the New Zealand healthcare policy as well as in the international scale. This paper will also highl

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.dcp.edu.gov.on.ca/en/curriculum/elementary-health-and-physical-education/context/roles-and-responsibilities
Every student needs to be responsible towards their health in order for them to have a conducive learning session and have the focus mind to achieve their goals.
The responsibility of their physical health that they acquire in health and physical education can be applied to other physical activities that they participate in at school, at home, and in the community.
For healthy growth and development, it is recommended that children and youths should limit the amount of time that they spend sitting, without being active. This would help them to take control of their physical health.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nih.gov/health-information/physical-wellness-toolkit
Taking good care of our physical health is our own choice. With a positive physical health, it will contribute to many benefits such as increased energy and a reduced risk of diseases. In order to have good physical health, it is our choice to choose to be fit (by exercising daily) , build healthy diets (by eating lots of fruits & vegetables, avoid oily foods) and maintaining a healthy lifestyle (by staying hydrated, getting enough sleep, not smoking and having a balanced and healthy meal)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Discover which physical health habits can help decrease your stress, lower your risk of disease, and increase your energy.

# data[].attributes.body
Thesis Statement: Early education affects our choices in maintaining good physical health.
By taking actions such as choosing to go to an early education about physical health, we will be able to learn more about health related knowledge, such as knowing how to maintain a healthy lifestyle by staying hydrated, getting enough sleep, not smoking and having a balanced and healthy meal. Research shows that students who participated in health education have improved health knowledge and attitudes, health literacy and skills and has a positive impact on health promoting behaviours. An early education helps to correct our mindset, we will be able to defer between the right and wrong in our choices of our lifestyle. We will be able to adjust our eating habits, hence it will have a positive impact on our physical health. Being educated early, We will know how to have good habits of exercising regularly. Therefore, good physical health is possible if we are willing to take action.

Good physical health is possible if we are willing to take actions. Despite having the knowledge, it is also our choice to carry out the knowledge into action. Oily and unhealthy foods are easily available, but we must choose to avoid and refrain from eating them too much in order to maintain our good physical health as it contributes to bad effects, such as heart diseases and diarrhea. Being able to have self control and the will to carry out actions using the knowledge of our health, we will be able to enjoy benefits such as the ability to achieve our goals and maintain a good physical health as it aids in de-stressing and revitalising one's body. Hence, good physical health is possible is possible if we are willing to take action.

# data[].attributes.body
https://nursinganswers.net/essays/health-individual-societal-responsibility-6551.php
Lifestyles play a major role in the illnesses. one fact that cannot be ignored is that too many of us are eating too much, drinking too much, smoking and not doing enough physical activity and that is beginning to take its toll on our health. Thus by changing our lifestyles like reducing salt and sugar, exercising frequently and eating more fruits and vegetables, it will make a big difference in our health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Health: An Individual or Societal Responsibility?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abstract This paper aims to discuss the current issue on responsibility on health and its effect on the New Zealand healthcare policy as well as in the international scale. This paper will also highl

# data[].attributes.body
1. https://fsph.iupui.edu/doc/10-Tips-Healthy-Lifestyle.pdf

2. Physical health can be taken care of ourselves and its not because of mental health that is affecting us but instead what we are doing daily , such as what we are eating/consuming everyday. Oily food can help us gain unnecessary weight affecting our physical health, while eating salads and healthier things can prevent unnecessary things from our choice of food.

# data[].attributes.body
Almost two-thirds of adults are overweight or obese, and, shockingly, so, too, are a growing number of children. Fewer than one in ten children are obese when they enter reception class, but by the time they’re in year six, that figure is nearly one in five.Research shows there are contradictions at play that need to be addressed if significant results are to be achieved. For example, a recent report published by Philips, Picture of Health, shows that UK adults and health-care professionals both agree that preventing poor health is the responsibility of the person in question. However, only 38 per cent of professionals believe patients understand that prevention is better than cure, despite patients reporting the opposite. Indeed, at present, less than half of UK adults are actively managing their health. All of this shows there is a clear disconnect between what they think they should do and what they actually do, and that it is time for people to engage actively with their health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Photo By )

Whose responsibility is our health? Government? Employers? The food and drink industry? Ourselves? Whereas one person might be comfortable to hand over control of his well-being to others, the next person may not.

Whatever New Statesman readers may think, there is one fact that cannot be ignored: too many of us are eating too much, drinking too much, smoking and not doing enough physical activity - and that is beginning to take its toll on our health and our health-care system.

There are an estimated 3.2 million people with diabetes in the UK, already one million more than ten years ago, and the figure is predicted to reach four million by 2025. There are now more than 3,000 alcohol-related admissions to A&E every day. One in five adults still smokes. Almost two-thirds of adults are overweight or obese, and, shockingly, so, too, are a growing number of children. Fewer than one in ten children are obese when they enter reception class, but by the time they're in year six, that figure is nearly one in five.

The NHS is bearing the brunt of this. As it states in the Five Year Forward Review: "As the 'stock' of population health risk gets worse, the 'flow' of costly NHS treatments increases as a consequence . . . Put bluntly, as the nation's waistline keeps piling on the pounds, we're piling on billions of pounds in future taxes just to pay for preventable illnesses."

Quite rightly, the NHS strategy places considerable focus on prevention. It makes more sense to roll out a national programme of intensive lifestyle intervention programmes than it does to spend more money on dealing with the health complications stemming from an unhealthy lifestyle. A key ambition of the NHS, therefore, is to "become the first country to implement at scale a national evidence-based diabetes prevention programme modelled on proven UK and international models, and linked where appropriate to the new Health Check. NHS England and Public Health England will establish a preventative services programme that will then expand evidence-based action to other conditions".

But does the public understand its own role in this prevention strategy? Research shows there are contradictions at play that need to be addressed if significant results are to be achieved. For example, a recent report published by Philips, Picture of Health, shows that UK adults and health-care professionals both agree that preventing poor health is the responsibility of the person in question. However, only 38 per cent of professionals believe patients understand that prevention is better than cure, despite patients reporting the opposite. Indeed, at present, less than half of UK adults are actively managing their health. All of this shows there is a clear disconnect between what they think they should do and what they actually do, and that it is time for people to engage actively with their health.

"If you look at the different age groups, millennials are very actively monitoring their own health but they're a bit confused as to what they can do with the data [that their apps and health trackers provide]. Conversely, the 55-to-65-year-old cohort are very confident that they're managing their health in a big way but when you actually ask them what they're doing, they say that they weigh themselves, brush their teeth and visit their doctor occasionally, which is not particularly active engagement when it comes to managing your health," said Sean Hughes, vice-president of design at Philips, speaking at a recent event hosted by the RSA called "Our Health: Who Cares?".

Overall, less than half (45 per cent) of British adults say they are actively managing their health. Of those who aren't, a quarter (26 per cent) know they should be more active but don't have a strong desire to be so, and 8 per cent admit they just don't do it.

Of course, all sections of our society have a responsibility for our health in one way or another, be it food manufacturers reducing salt and sugar in our food, local authorities seeking to limit junk-food outlets near schools, or employers ensuring positive well-being in the workplace - and this was reflected in the Philips research. About half (48 per cent) of respondents felt that corporations, such as the food and drink industry, should bear responsibility for our health, closely followed by the NHS (46 per cent) and educators (39 per cent). One in three (32 per cent) believe the onus lies on the media, while (22 per cent) think it is their employers' responsibility.

Again, age influenced opinion. Millennials were much more likely to see other actors playing an active role in public health, half (50 per cent) of them believing that legislation could be a positive move. This was in contrast to most adults, of whom only a third (37 per cent) felt that the government should legislate. Meanwhile, many more health-care professionals were in favour of legislation - some 64 per cent of primary and 55 per cent of secondary health-care professionals would support new laws.

In general, British adults have a reactive outlook on making meaningful lifestyle changes. Most (71 per cent) waited until they had physical symptoms or were given a warning by their doctor (69 per cent). Very few are motivated by others; only 22 per cent said seeing a friend or family member experience a health problem would prompt them to change their behaviour and just 11 per cent would be inspired to change after seeing a friend or family member take charge of their own health.

"There is an interesting aspect in the report in terms of who's responsible for prompting people to actually think [about their health]. We probably all believe that it's everybody - individual, community, industry, third sector, local and national government - but it really has to be a whole system change," said Tim Chadborn, behavioural insights lead researcher at Public Health England, who also spoke at the RSA event. He gave examples from within the NHS of initiatives such as the NHS Health Check programme, which invites people to talk to a trained health-care worker about their diet and physical activity, and Making Every Contact Count, which encourages health-care workers to stress the importance of prevention when they see members of the public. "For instance, we know that if someone is a smoker and goes to see a doctor and the doctor doesn't ask about their smoking, they're actually less likely to quit," he said.

Knowledge is power

Individuals can be greatly helped by knowing what options they have, what these cost the taxpayer in terms of time and money, and how they may affect their ability to work and play. Better education clearly should play a part in the strategy.

Brits have already indicated they are hungry for information: three-quarters have gathered information about health and wellness from more than one source in the past year (primarily health-related websites). Seventy-one per cent of those who use connected devices and apps to track their health believe technology has empowered them to take control of their well-being. In addition, younger adults feel that their ability to manage their health would be boosted by support from professionals, such as a health, nutrition or fitness expert (36 per cent); by consistent information and advice from experts (33 per cent); by guidance on how to put information into practice (30 per cent); and by personalised consultations and treatments from their doctor (28 per cent).

Providing people with the tools they need to take control is vital, says Tim Kelsey, NHS national director for patients and information, who believes access to data is at the heart of this.

"From this April we've become the first country in the world to offer all our citizens access to GP records, online bookings, repeat prescriptions . . . The public is ready and willing: we just need to get ready to give them more control when they want it," he said at the RSA event.

Philips's Hughes concurs: "We believe we can break free from the inertia of inaction by connecting people and professionals with accurate and personalised health data. This, combined with solutions that keep healthy people well longer and aiding people to manage health at home, is the key to a hearty and better future for us all."

A similar sentiment comes from within the NHS itself. Some 62 per cent of primary and 69 per cent of secondary health-care professionals believe that access to health data is a patient's right and that individuals should have access to more of it. Indeed, 55 per cent felt that being given such access would increase patients' sense of responsibility for their health.

A problem shared is a problem halved

It seems obvious that the job of clinicians and the health-care system is to take care of people when they are sick, but when the impact of every individual patient case is considered as a whole - and we see the implications this has for budgets, staffing, volume of services and so on - it becomes clear that responsibility for our nation's health has to be shared, so that the NHS is not required to shoulder the whole burden alone.

Creating the type of environment that empowers and supports people to make informed, balanced choices will help them lead healthier lives, and will go a long way towards maintaining the health of the NHS itself.

This article is part of a thought-provoking series on living health, brought to you by New Statesman in association with Philips, that looks at how technology, innovation and big data are helping to improve your health and our health-care system.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whose responsibility is our health? Government? Employers? The food and drink industry? Ourselves? Whereas one person might be comfortable to hand over control of his well-being to others, the next person may not.

# data[].attributes.body
- individuals can start by having an early education about physical health. Having dedicated lessons that are focus on health and health behaviours. research shows that students who participate in health education in their school have more health related knowledge and attitude which have a positive impact on health promoting behaviours.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The importance of health literacy - The Hippocratic Post

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
According to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, personal health literacy is ’the degree to which individuals have the

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/individual-responsibility-important-for-maintaining-health-heng-swee-keat

Referring to the recent announcements by the Government to make healthcare more affordable, he stressed that individuals also have to make an effort to live healthily.He said: "Healthcare is a very good example of how individual responsibility is so important. At the end of the day we each need to do our own part to maintain our own health."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Individual responsibility important for maintaining health: Heng Swee Keat

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Singaporeans need to take responsibility for their own health, said Education Minister Heng Swee Keat on Sunday. . Read more at straitstimes.com.

# data[].attributes.body
People who accomplished the recommended amount of physical activity per week (150 minutes) not only feel better about themselves are also less likely to suffer a major adverse cardiovascular event (heart attack, strokes etc) than those who exercised less. This effect also benefits more toward those who have common chronic stress-related psychiatric conditions such as major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, and post traumatic stress disorder.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most of us already know exercise can do wonders for our physical and emotional health, and reduce the risk of contracting a number of diseases. But new research shows that exercising holds even more heart health benefits for people who suffer from anxiety, stress, and depression.

In a study presented at the American College of Cardiology's 71st Annual Scientific Session in April, researchers found that regular physical activity had nearly doubled the cardiovascular benefit in individuals with depression or anxiety, compared with individuals without those diagnoses.

According to the research, people who accomplished the recommended amount of physical activity per week (150 minutes) were 17 percent less likely to suffer a major adverse cardiovascular event than those who exercised less. Out of the people who achieved the recommended amount of 150 minutes per week, those with anxiety or depression had a 22 percent risk reduction versus a 10 percent risk in those without either condition.

The analysis included more than 50,000 patients in the Massachusetts General Brigham Biobank database. Just over 4,000 of the patients analyzed had suffered a major cardiovascular event, like a heart attack, chest pain caused by a blocked artery, or underwent a procedure to open a blocked artery in the heart. In conducting the study, researchers initially assessed the rates of major coronary events among patients who reported in the questionnaire that they exercised at least 500 metabolic equivalent (MET) minutes per week - which aligns with the ACC's and American Heart Association's primary prevention guidelines of 150 minutes of moderate intensity exercise per week - with those who exercised less.

Over the course of the study, researchers found that patients with depression derived more than double the benefit in exercise in terms of reduced cardiovascular risk compared with people who did not have depression. A similar benefit was found for people with anxiety.

Hadil Zureigat, MD, who is the postdoctoral clinical research at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and the study's lead author, clarified in the press release that the study does not suggest that exercise is only effective in those with depression or anxiety, but emphasizes that physical activity can help people feel better and potentially reduce their risk of cardiovascular disease, allowing those with common chronic stress-related psychiatric conditions to hit two birds with one stone.

Michael Emery, MD, who is the co-director of the Sports Cardiology Center at Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, and was not involved in the study, explains the reason physical activity is so beneficial. "Exercise is medicine both physically and psychologically, and these factors interplay such that when you are more physically healthy your psychological state is more robust, and when you are mentally more healthy your physical state is improved," he says. "This latter connection is both direct, the connection between hormonal stress levels and the physical state; and indirect, better healthy habits such as eating."

Rates of both depression and anxiety have risen over the COVID-19 pandemic. Eleven percent of U.S. adults surveyed in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) 2019 National Health Interview Survey had symptoms of anxiety or depression. But by December 2020, the percentage of adults showing symptoms of anxiety disorder or depressive disorder spiked to 42 percent, according to estimates from the CDC's Household Pulse Survey. Although the survey shows that the number dropped to 31 percent by December 2021, it still remains above pre-pandemic levels.

In addition, heart disease remains the leading cause of death in the United States. Researchers of the current study say the data emphasizes the important role of exercise in maintaining heart health and reducing stress.

"I see way more patients in my clinics now than I did in the past," Dr. Emery says. "They may not have overt cardiac disease, but they are very stressed about the overall pandemic, the role the pandemic has played on their health, and that is ultimately negatively impacting their health."

A Little Bit of Physical Activity Goes a Long Way

The analysis expands upon previous studies by the research team that used brain imaging to determine how exercise improves cardiovascular health by helping to keep the brain's stress response in check. Although this particular study used 500 MET minutes as a cutoff for the analysis, previous studies show people can reduce their risk for heart disease even if they do not achieve the recommended amount of physical activity.

Emery says exercising is not just something he preaches to his patients, but something he practices.

"I see it in my own personal health," he says, noting that he has a very stressful job. "Exercise for me is what keeps the stress at bay."

Emery stresses the importance of physical activity even if it doesn't hit the sweet spot of 150 minutes of moderate intensity exercise a week. He says taking the stairs, walking an extra bit from the car, or developing a community to help support your physical fitness needs is a great start.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Consistent Exercise Linked To More Heart Health Benefits For People Who Suffer From Anxiety and Stress, Study Finds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Most of us already know exercise can do wonders for our physical and emotional health, and reduce the risk of contracting a number of diseases. But new research shows that exercising holds even more heart health benefits for people who suffer from anxiety, stress, and depression.

# data[].attributes.body
https://hpb.gov.sg/healthy-living/food-beverage
https://hpb.gov.sg/food-beverage/healthier-choice-symbol

Though the government is supposed to ensure that the citizens of the country is healthy.However It is still the responsibility of an individual for their own physical health.The government has actually done their part by making food in Singapore more healthy to consume.They also added the healthier choice logo for the improved food.The Healthier Choice Symbol can be seen on about 4000 different food products, spanning across over 100 food categories such as convenience meals, sauces, beverages and breakfast cereals.At this point it is the choice of an individual whether to take the healthier food or those that are not that healthy.It is the responsibility of the individual now as things is done by the government and if they refused to care for their own health it is all their own fault.So it is the responsibility of an individual for their own physical health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A healthy diet is one of the most important parts of maintaining a healthy lifestyle. It ensures that our bodies get the appropriate amount of nutrients and vitamins we need, preventing the onset of diseases and conditions. However, with our busy schedules and fast-paced lives, it may sometimes be difficult to make healthier choices when pressed for time.

Through our programmes, such as the Healthier Choice Symbol Programme or the Healthier Dining Programme, we enable Singaporeans to make healthier dining choices easily, regardless of whether they choose to dine in or out. Join us as a partner to help build a healthier nation, one dining choice at a time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A healthy diet is one of the most important parts of maintaining a healthy lifestyle. It ensures that our bodies get the appropriate amount of nutrients and vitamins we need, preventing the onset of diseases and conditions. However, with our busy schedules and fast-paced lives, it may sometimes be difficult to make healthier choices when pressed for time.

# data[].attributes.body
from (https://www.newstatesman.com/living-health/2015/11/who-responsible-our-health)

More people are eating, drinking, and smoking too much, taking a toll on our physical health in the long run. With more people in the UK with diabetes and almost 3000 alcohol related A&E visits a day, the NHS is unable to cope with the number of people they have to cure, severely impacting them. Only 38% of patients believe that prevention is better than cure, thus adding more pressure on the health system, with less than half of the adults in the UK actively monitoring their health. Most millennials actively monitor their health, but are stumped by what they are supposed to do with the data their health tracking apps provide, with some British adults admitting they do not have a strong desire to improve the health nor care for it.
The only way to ease the load on the NHS is for the public to take more responsibility in their health, thus preventing treatments that would have been costly to the patient and taxpayers.

\

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Photo By )

Whose responsibility is our health? Government? Employers? The food and drink industry? Ourselves? Whereas one person might be comfortable to hand over control of his well-being to others, the next person may not.

Whatever New Statesman readers may think, there is one fact that cannot be ignored: too many of us are eating too much, drinking too much, smoking and not doing enough physical activity - and that is beginning to take its toll on our health and our health-care system.

There are an estimated 3.2 million people with diabetes in the UK, already one million more than ten years ago, and the figure is predicted to reach four million by 2025. There are now more than 3,000 alcohol-related admissions to A&E every day. One in five adults still smokes. Almost two-thirds of adults are overweight or obese, and, shockingly, so, too, are a growing number of children. Fewer than one in ten children are obese when they enter reception class, but by the time they're in year six, that figure is nearly one in five.

The NHS is bearing the brunt of this. As it states in the Five Year Forward Review: "As the 'stock' of population health risk gets worse, the 'flow' of costly NHS treatments increases as a consequence . . . Put bluntly, as the nation's waistline keeps piling on the pounds, we're piling on billions of pounds in future taxes just to pay for preventable illnesses."

Quite rightly, the NHS strategy places considerable focus on prevention. It makes more sense to roll out a national programme of intensive lifestyle intervention programmes than it does to spend more money on dealing with the health complications stemming from an unhealthy lifestyle. A key ambition of the NHS, therefore, is to "become the first country to implement at scale a national evidence-based diabetes prevention programme modelled on proven UK and international models, and linked where appropriate to the new Health Check. NHS England and Public Health England will establish a preventative services programme that will then expand evidence-based action to other conditions".

But does the public understand its own role in this prevention strategy? Research shows there are contradictions at play that need to be addressed if significant results are to be achieved. For example, a recent report published by Philips, Picture of Health, shows that UK adults and health-care professionals both agree that preventing poor health is the responsibility of the person in question. However, only 38 per cent of professionals believe patients understand that prevention is better than cure, despite patients reporting the opposite. Indeed, at present, less than half of UK adults are actively managing their health. All of this shows there is a clear disconnect between what they think they should do and what they actually do, and that it is time for people to engage actively with their health.

"If you look at the different age groups, millennials are very actively monitoring their own health but they're a bit confused as to what they can do with the data [that their apps and health trackers provide]. Conversely, the 55-to-65-year-old cohort are very confident that they're managing their health in a big way but when you actually ask them what they're doing, they say that they weigh themselves, brush their teeth and visit their doctor occasionally, which is not particularly active engagement when it comes to managing your health," said Sean Hughes, vice-president of design at Philips, speaking at a recent event hosted by the RSA called "Our Health: Who Cares?".

Overall, less than half (45 per cent) of British adults say they are actively managing their health. Of those who aren't, a quarter (26 per cent) know they should be more active but don't have a strong desire to be so, and 8 per cent admit they just don't do it.

Of course, all sections of our society have a responsibility for our health in one way or another, be it food manufacturers reducing salt and sugar in our food, local authorities seeking to limit junk-food outlets near schools, or employers ensuring positive well-being in the workplace - and this was reflected in the Philips research. About half (48 per cent) of respondents felt that corporations, such as the food and drink industry, should bear responsibility for our health, closely followed by the NHS (46 per cent) and educators (39 per cent). One in three (32 per cent) believe the onus lies on the media, while (22 per cent) think it is their employers' responsibility.

Again, age influenced opinion. Millennials were much more likely to see other actors playing an active role in public health, half (50 per cent) of them believing that legislation could be a positive move. This was in contrast to most adults, of whom only a third (37 per cent) felt that the government should legislate. Meanwhile, many more health-care professionals were in favour of legislation - some 64 per cent of primary and 55 per cent of secondary health-care professionals would support new laws.

In general, British adults have a reactive outlook on making meaningful lifestyle changes. Most (71 per cent) waited until they had physical symptoms or were given a warning by their doctor (69 per cent). Very few are motivated by others; only 22 per cent said seeing a friend or family member experience a health problem would prompt them to change their behaviour and just 11 per cent would be inspired to change after seeing a friend or family member take charge of their own health.

"There is an interesting aspect in the report in terms of who's responsible for prompting people to actually think [about their health]. We probably all believe that it's everybody - individual, community, industry, third sector, local and national government - but it really has to be a whole system change," said Tim Chadborn, behavioural insights lead researcher at Public Health England, who also spoke at the RSA event. He gave examples from within the NHS of initiatives such as the NHS Health Check programme, which invites people to talk to a trained health-care worker about their diet and physical activity, and Making Every Contact Count, which encourages health-care workers to stress the importance of prevention when they see members of the public. "For instance, we know that if someone is a smoker and goes to see a doctor and the doctor doesn't ask about their smoking, they're actually less likely to quit," he said.

Knowledge is power

Individuals can be greatly helped by knowing what options they have, what these cost the taxpayer in terms of time and money, and how they may affect their ability to work and play. Better education clearly should play a part in the strategy.

Brits have already indicated they are hungry for information: three-quarters have gathered information about health and wellness from more than one source in the past year (primarily health-related websites). Seventy-one per cent of those who use connected devices and apps to track their health believe technology has empowered them to take control of their well-being. In addition, younger adults feel that their ability to manage their health would be boosted by support from professionals, such as a health, nutrition or fitness expert (36 per cent); by consistent information and advice from experts (33 per cent); by guidance on how to put information into practice (30 per cent); and by personalised consultations and treatments from their doctor (28 per cent).

Providing people with the tools they need to take control is vital, says Tim Kelsey, NHS national director for patients and information, who believes access to data is at the heart of this.

"From this April we've become the first country in the world to offer all our citizens access to GP records, online bookings, repeat prescriptions . . . The public is ready and willing: we just need to get ready to give them more control when they want it," he said at the RSA event.

Philips's Hughes concurs: "We believe we can break free from the inertia of inaction by connecting people and professionals with accurate and personalised health data. This, combined with solutions that keep healthy people well longer and aiding people to manage health at home, is the key to a hearty and better future for us all."

A similar sentiment comes from within the NHS itself. Some 62 per cent of primary and 69 per cent of secondary health-care professionals believe that access to health data is a patient's right and that individuals should have access to more of it. Indeed, 55 per cent felt that being given such access would increase patients' sense of responsibility for their health.

A problem shared is a problem halved

It seems obvious that the job of clinicians and the health-care system is to take care of people when they are sick, but when the impact of every individual patient case is considered as a whole - and we see the implications this has for budgets, staffing, volume of services and so on - it becomes clear that responsibility for our nation's health has to be shared, so that the NHS is not required to shoulder the whole burden alone.

Creating the type of environment that empowers and supports people to make informed, balanced choices will help them lead healthier lives, and will go a long way towards maintaining the health of the NHS itself.

This article is part of a thought-provoking series on living health, brought to you by New Statesman in association with Philips, that looks at how technology, innovation and big data are helping to improve your health and our health-care system.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whose responsibility is our health? Government? Employers? The food and drink industry? Ourselves? Whereas one person might be comfortable to hand over control of his well-being to others, the next person may not.

# data[].attributes.body
Physical health can also be affected by health systems, governments and physical environments. It is not just up to the individual to maintain their own physical health. For example, fast-food outlets that are placed throughout a city, or the lack of access to fruits and vegetables throughout the city. Cities have many health-constraining places which are convenient for people who are looking for places or food to eat without having to travel far. This cannot be helped by individuals without any control, and the protection and promotion of a good public health is primarily the responsibility of governments that think of fast-food outlets as a swift resolution for feeding their population. There are not enough "health-promoting" features in a city, such as green spaces, physical activity facilities, or supermarkets to support individuals that are looking for ways to promote their own physical health. Therefore, it is not up to the individual solely to maintain good physical health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As councils and central government consider what cities of the future will look like, a new tool has been developed to map how various features of where we live influence public health.

The Healthy Location Index (HLI) breaks down healthy and unhealthy elements in cities across New Zealand. It offers important lessons for how we plan and modify our cities to increase physical activity levels and tackle important issues such as obesity and mental health.

The obesogenic environment

New Zealand has one of the highest numbers of adults living with obesity in the world and the rates are not improving. Data from 2021 showed a substantial increase in both childhood and adult obesity from the previous year.

Obesity is a major public health concern that is estimated to be responsible for approximately 5% of all global deaths annually. The global economic impact of obesity is estimated at roughly US$2 trillion or 2.8% of global GDP.

Health issues like this are often thought of in terms of personal responsibility. However, this approach diverts focus away from health systems, governments and physical environments.

The global rise in obesity since 1980 has occurred too rapidly for genetic or biological factors to be its root cause. Instead, it may actually just be a normal response to environments that provide easy access to energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods and a range of unhealthy options that require us expending very little energy.

Read more: Before pregnancy even starts, healthy weight in mums and dads lowers obesity risk in children

Think about it: maintaining good health in our current environment requires a lot of effort. Why? Because healthy choices are often more difficult than convenient ones, be that trying to avoid fast-food outlets or conveniently placed liqour stores, the lack of access to fresh fruit and vegetables, or deciding to cycle rather than drive the car.

This is known as an obesogenic environment and it needs to change.

The Healthy Location Index

This change begins with an understanding of how things currently stand, which is where the HLI comes in.

Data used in our index includes quantifying access to five "health-constraining" features: fast-food outlets, takeaway outlets, dairies and convenience stores, alcohol outlets and gaming venues.

We also quantify five "health-promoting" features: green spaces, blue spaces (accessible outdoor water environments), physical activity facilities, fruit and vegetable outlets, and supermarkets.

Read more: Higher-density cities need greening to stay healthy and liveable

The index provides a rank for every neighbourhood in New Zealand based on access to these positive and negative features.

Out of New Zealand's three major urban regions, Wellington shows highly accessible health-promoting and health-constraining environments, Auckland offers relatively balanced environments, and Christchurch shows a high proportion of people living in more health-constraining environments.

Environmental injustice

The bigger picture created by the HLI supports previous evidence highlighting a disproportionate number of features that constrain health, such as fast-food outlets and liqour stores in socioeconomically deprived areas.

Of particular concern in the most deprived areas, the distance to health-constraining features was half what it was in the the least deprived areas, highlighting the persistent over-provision of gambling outlets and liqour stores in some parts of the country.

This phenomenon is well known as a form of "environmental injustice" which ultimately stems from a lack of equity in the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.

The index also highlights how areas of New Zealand with quick and easy access to health-constraining features are worse off in terms of both mental and physical health outcomes such as depression and type II diabetes.

While the index shows clear evidence that, on average, the most deprived areas of New Zealand often have access to health-constraining features, this finding is not universal. It also varies from place to place.

Wellington and Christchurch both have a decreasing number of health-promoting environments, with growing deprivation. However, there are remarkably more health-constraining places in Christchurch than in Wellington.

Knowledge offers a way to change

This is only our first iteration of the index and we intend to add more features in the future. But we hope the data provided in the index can encourage important conversations to help us better understand how our cities are shaped.

We need to ask whether we really need that additional fast-food outlet or liquor store in the same neighbourhood. We hope the index can help policy makers consider how to shape more health-friendly cities by regulating or adding the right features.

After all, the protection and promotion of public health is a core responsibility of government and it should not be left to individuals, families or communities to create such changes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Our cities are making us fat and unhealthy - a 'healthy location index' can help us plan better

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As councils and central government consider what cities of the future will look like, a new tool has been developed to map how various features of where we live influence public health. The Healthy Location Index (HLI) breaks down healthy and unhealthy elements in cities across New Zealand.

# data[].attributes.body
Individuals have a right to eat what they want to eat or do what they want to do.Smoking,for one is bad and everyone should stay away from it, but there are those who still smoke.People smoke for maybe personal reasons or relieving stress,but there are better and healthier ways to relieve stress.This states a point in the cancer part,there has been no cure for cancer.smoking causes cancer,but people still continue to smoke.People who smoke are more likely to die first due to their deteriorating lungs.Thus ones physical health is ultimately an individual's responsibility

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Taking Personal Responsibility for Your Health

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/05/people-must-take-responsibility-for-own-health-says-matt-hancock

Individuals need to do far more to personally take responsibility for their own health. People need to take greater responsibility for managing their own health. It’s about people choosing to look after themselves better, staying active and stopping smoking. Making better choices by limiting alcohol, sugar, salt and fat. An individual's health is up to themselves to manage as no one should be responsible for other people's physical health other then yourself.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Matt Hancock has triggered a row after urging people to take greater responsibility for their own health to tackle the rising toll of illness from diseases such as cancer and obesity.

In a speech on Monday the health and social care secretary will call for a big increase in people making healthier lifestyle choices, such as reducing the amount of alcohol and junk food they consume.

Speaking ahead of the speech Hancock said "We need to do far more to personally take responsibility for our own health."

In his speech outlining plans for a major push to prevent ill health, Hancock will say: "Prevention is also about ensuring that people take greater responsibility for managing their own health. It's about people choosing to look after themselves better, staying active and stopping smoking. Making better choices by limiting alcohol, sugar, salt and fat."

Hancock will insist that his focus on people's individual responsibilities as patients "isn't about penalising people" and instead involves helping them make better choices, some of which involve "tough decisions".

However, one leading public health doctor said Hancock's focus on personal responsibility was "naive" and an example of "victim blaming".

Simon Capewell, a professor of public health and policy at Liverpool University, said the minister was right to emphasise the need for effective prevention of epidemics such as obesity, diabetes and dementia.

But he added: "We must recognise the huge power of our lived environment, and avoid naively just focusing on 'personal responsibility' and 'individual choices'. People do not 'choose' obesity or diabetes or cancer. They have just been overwhelmed by a toxic environment."

The big drop in the last decade in the number of Britons who smoke showed that firm, consistent government action was the best way to boost public health, Capewell said.

He added: "Mr Hancock can celebrate previous health successes with tobacco control. That success was built not on victim blaming, but on strong tax and regulation policies to reduce the 'three As' of tobacco affordability, availability and acceptability."

Ministers need to take similarly tough action now against "the production of the commodities which harm people's ill health, including junk food, cheap booze and fixed-odds betting terminals," he said.

Hancock denied that the government's austerity programme had an impact on public health. In an interview for the BBC's Today programme Hancock said: "The biggest impact on your health from the economy is whether or not you have got a job, and there are record numbers of jobs in this country."

Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, criticised Hancock's remarks. "From telling people to stand up in meetings to now lecturing people about their habits, while cutting £1bn from health services, isn't a serious plan for improving the health of the nation," he said.

Hancock is not expected to announce any major measures to aid health prevention. But he will say that much more of the NHS budget needed to be spent on prevention. "In the UK, we are spending £97bn of public money on treating disease and only £8bn preventing it across the UK. You don't have to be an economist to see those numbers don't stack up," he will say at the annual meeting in London of the International Association of National Public Health Institutes.

Dr Andrew Goddard, president of the Royal College of Physicians, urged Hancock to reduce the toll of lifestyle-related disease by introducing minimum unit pricing of alcohol in England as well as much tougher legislation to tackle air pollution.

Several health organisations highlighted that local councils in England have had to cut their public health budgets in recent years, and will do so again next year, because Hancock's department of health and social care has reduced their grants to divert more money to frontline NHS services.

Helen Donovan, professional lead for public health at the Royal College of Nursing, said: "But Matt Hancock must realise his plans will start at a disadvantage as local authorities struggle with planned cuts to public health budgets of almost 4% per year until 2021. Disadvantaged areas emerge worse off without these vital services, with life expectancy and the poorest bearing the brunt of underinvestment in public health."

Jo Bibby, director of health at the Health Foundation thinktank, said its research had found that £700m had been cut from public health grants since 2014-15.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
People must take responsibility for own health, says Matt Hancock

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Matt Hancock has triggered a row after urging people to take greater responsibility for their own health to tackle the rising toll of illness from diseases such as cancer and obesity. In a speech on Monday the health and social care secretary will call for a big increase in people making healthier lifestyle choices, such as reducing the amount of alcohol and junk food they consume.

# data[].attributes.body
https://patch.com/virginia/reston/bp--taking-responsibility-for-your-health
Our current health care crisis has nothing to do with Senators, Congressman or health care bills. It has everything to do with you. By choosing to live a healthy lifestyle, you play a direct part in the solution; my avoiding your personal responsibility to take care of yourself, you become a part of the problem.

# data[].attributes.body
The beginning that tolls our health is the lifestyle habits they have. Too many of us are eating too much, drinking too much, smoking and not doing enough physical activity. The creation of the type of environment that empowers and supports people to make informed, balanced choices will help them lead healthier lives, and will go a long way towards maintaining the health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Photo By )

Whose responsibility is our health? Government? Employers? The food and drink industry? Ourselves? Whereas one person might be comfortable to hand over control of his well-being to others, the next person may not.

Whatever New Statesman readers may think, there is one fact that cannot be ignored: too many of us are eating too much, drinking too much, smoking and not doing enough physical activity - and that is beginning to take its toll on our health and our health-care system.

There are an estimated 3.2 million people with diabetes in the UK, already one million more than ten years ago, and the figure is predicted to reach four million by 2025. There are now more than 3,000 alcohol-related admissions to A&E every day. One in five adults still smokes. Almost two-thirds of adults are overweight or obese, and, shockingly, so, too, are a growing number of children. Fewer than one in ten children are obese when they enter reception class, but by the time they're in year six, that figure is nearly one in five.

The NHS is bearing the brunt of this. As it states in the Five Year Forward Review: "As the 'stock' of population health risk gets worse, the 'flow' of costly NHS treatments increases as a consequence . . . Put bluntly, as the nation's waistline keeps piling on the pounds, we're piling on billions of pounds in future taxes just to pay for preventable illnesses."

Quite rightly, the NHS strategy places considerable focus on prevention. It makes more sense to roll out a national programme of intensive lifestyle intervention programmes than it does to spend more money on dealing with the health complications stemming from an unhealthy lifestyle. A key ambition of the NHS, therefore, is to "become the first country to implement at scale a national evidence-based diabetes prevention programme modelled on proven UK and international models, and linked where appropriate to the new Health Check. NHS England and Public Health England will establish a preventative services programme that will then expand evidence-based action to other conditions".

But does the public understand its own role in this prevention strategy? Research shows there are contradictions at play that need to be addressed if significant results are to be achieved. For example, a recent report published by Philips, Picture of Health, shows that UK adults and health-care professionals both agree that preventing poor health is the responsibility of the person in question. However, only 38 per cent of professionals believe patients understand that prevention is better than cure, despite patients reporting the opposite. Indeed, at present, less than half of UK adults are actively managing their health. All of this shows there is a clear disconnect between what they think they should do and what they actually do, and that it is time for people to engage actively with their health.

"If you look at the different age groups, millennials are very actively monitoring their own health but they're a bit confused as to what they can do with the data [that their apps and health trackers provide]. Conversely, the 55-to-65-year-old cohort are very confident that they're managing their health in a big way but when you actually ask them what they're doing, they say that they weigh themselves, brush their teeth and visit their doctor occasionally, which is not particularly active engagement when it comes to managing your health," said Sean Hughes, vice-president of design at Philips, speaking at a recent event hosted by the RSA called "Our Health: Who Cares?".

Overall, less than half (45 per cent) of British adults say they are actively managing their health. Of those who aren't, a quarter (26 per cent) know they should be more active but don't have a strong desire to be so, and 8 per cent admit they just don't do it.

Of course, all sections of our society have a responsibility for our health in one way or another, be it food manufacturers reducing salt and sugar in our food, local authorities seeking to limit junk-food outlets near schools, or employers ensuring positive well-being in the workplace - and this was reflected in the Philips research. About half (48 per cent) of respondents felt that corporations, such as the food and drink industry, should bear responsibility for our health, closely followed by the NHS (46 per cent) and educators (39 per cent). One in three (32 per cent) believe the onus lies on the media, while (22 per cent) think it is their employers' responsibility.

Again, age influenced opinion. Millennials were much more likely to see other actors playing an active role in public health, half (50 per cent) of them believing that legislation could be a positive move. This was in contrast to most adults, of whom only a third (37 per cent) felt that the government should legislate. Meanwhile, many more health-care professionals were in favour of legislation - some 64 per cent of primary and 55 per cent of secondary health-care professionals would support new laws.

In general, British adults have a reactive outlook on making meaningful lifestyle changes. Most (71 per cent) waited until they had physical symptoms or were given a warning by their doctor (69 per cent). Very few are motivated by others; only 22 per cent said seeing a friend or family member experience a health problem would prompt them to change their behaviour and just 11 per cent would be inspired to change after seeing a friend or family member take charge of their own health.

"There is an interesting aspect in the report in terms of who's responsible for prompting people to actually think [about their health]. We probably all believe that it's everybody - individual, community, industry, third sector, local and national government - but it really has to be a whole system change," said Tim Chadborn, behavioural insights lead researcher at Public Health England, who also spoke at the RSA event. He gave examples from within the NHS of initiatives such as the NHS Health Check programme, which invites people to talk to a trained health-care worker about their diet and physical activity, and Making Every Contact Count, which encourages health-care workers to stress the importance of prevention when they see members of the public. "For instance, we know that if someone is a smoker and goes to see a doctor and the doctor doesn't ask about their smoking, they're actually less likely to quit," he said.

Knowledge is power

Individuals can be greatly helped by knowing what options they have, what these cost the taxpayer in terms of time and money, and how they may affect their ability to work and play. Better education clearly should play a part in the strategy.

Brits have already indicated they are hungry for information: three-quarters have gathered information about health and wellness from more than one source in the past year (primarily health-related websites). Seventy-one per cent of those who use connected devices and apps to track their health believe technology has empowered them to take control of their well-being. In addition, younger adults feel that their ability to manage their health would be boosted by support from professionals, such as a health, nutrition or fitness expert (36 per cent); by consistent information and advice from experts (33 per cent); by guidance on how to put information into practice (30 per cent); and by personalised consultations and treatments from their doctor (28 per cent).

Providing people with the tools they need to take control is vital, says Tim Kelsey, NHS national director for patients and information, who believes access to data is at the heart of this.

"From this April we've become the first country in the world to offer all our citizens access to GP records, online bookings, repeat prescriptions . . . The public is ready and willing: we just need to get ready to give them more control when they want it," he said at the RSA event.

Philips's Hughes concurs: "We believe we can break free from the inertia of inaction by connecting people and professionals with accurate and personalised health data. This, combined with solutions that keep healthy people well longer and aiding people to manage health at home, is the key to a hearty and better future for us all."

A similar sentiment comes from within the NHS itself. Some 62 per cent of primary and 69 per cent of secondary health-care professionals believe that access to health data is a patient's right and that individuals should have access to more of it. Indeed, 55 per cent felt that being given such access would increase patients' sense of responsibility for their health.

A problem shared is a problem halved

It seems obvious that the job of clinicians and the health-care system is to take care of people when they are sick, but when the impact of every individual patient case is considered as a whole - and we see the implications this has for budgets, staffing, volume of services and so on - it becomes clear that responsibility for our nation's health has to be shared, so that the NHS is not required to shoulder the whole burden alone.

Creating the type of environment that empowers and supports people to make informed, balanced choices will help them lead healthier lives, and will go a long way towards maintaining the health of the NHS itself.

This article is part of a thought-provoking series on living health, brought to you by New Statesman in association with Philips, that looks at how technology, innovation and big data are helping to improve your health and our health-care system.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whose responsibility is our health? Government? Employers? The food and drink industry? Ourselves? Whereas one person might be comfortable to hand over control of his well-being to others, the next person may not.

# data[].attributes.body
Factors such as accessibility to healthcare and environment can affect an individuals physical health.
Individuals who lack access to healthcare are unable to live healthier lives and cannot seek help to treat illnesses, resulting in their condition getting worse. The healthcare costs can also be a worry to some as they might not have enough money for the treatment. The environment
can also affect our physical health as air pollution is associated with increased asthma rates and lung diseases, and an increase in the risk of premature death. Water contaminated with chemicals can also lead to illnesses and infections. Individuals are unable to control these factors and therefore, are not responsible for their own physical health. No matter how much they try to stay healthy, it is inevitable to catch diseases in poor living conditions. The promotion of public health by society plays a bigger role in maintaining our physical health as it can help raise awareness among other people and campaigns can be set up to help individuals living in poor living conditions.

# data[].attributes.body
https://academic.oup.com/phe/article/12/2/145/5522654

Questions on health responsibility arise when citizens become patients and require treatment for diseases that occur or worsen because of their lifestyle. Retrospective forms of personal health responsibility could be ascribed when the individual’s past actions are identified as the main cause of a disease (Bærøe and Cappelen, 2015).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Lifestyle-induced diseases are becoming a burden on healthcare, actualizing the discussion on health responsibilities. Using data from the National Association for Heart and Lung Diseases (LHL)'s 2015 Health Survey ( N = 2689), this study examined the public's attitudes towards personal and social health responsibility in a Norwegian population. The questionnaires covered self-reported health and lifestyle, attitudes towards personal responsibility and the authorities' responsibility for promoting health, resource-prioritisation and socio-demographic characteristics. Block-wise multiple linear regression assessed the association between attitudes towards health responsibilities and individual lifestyle, political orientation and health condition. We found a moderate support for social responsibility across political views. Respondents reporting unhealthier eating habits, smokers and physically inactive were less supportive of health promotion policies (including information, health incentives, prevention and regulations). The idea that individuals are responsible for taking care of their health was widely accepted as an abstract ideal. Yet, only a third of the respondents agreed with introducing higher co-payments for treatment of 'self-inflicted' conditions and levels of support were patterned by health-related behaviour and left-right political orientation. Our study suggests that a significant support for social responsibility does not exclude a strong support for personal health responsibility. However, conditional access to healthcare based on personal lifestyle is still controversial.

Introduction

The prevalence of lifestyle-induced diseases is increasing worldwide, and non-communicable (NCDs) are overtaking infectious diseases as the leading cause of morbidity and mortality ( WHO, 2013). According to the World Health Organisation (2013), cardiovascular diseases, cancers, chronic respiratory diseases, and diabetes, which alone are responsible for 63 per cent of deaths globally, are associated with risk factors related to individual behavioural patterns, such as tobacco and alcohol consumption, unhealthy diets and lack of exercise. As substantial losses are related to these morbidities ( Scarborough et al., 2011; Krueger et al., 2014), action plans have recognised that small reductions of population exposure to lifestyle-related risks may yield significant health gains ( WHO, 2013). Also, given the evidence pointing to the social inequalities in health, a stronger commitment from the authorities in reducing systemic causes of lifestyle-related diseases is demanded ( Newdick, 2017).

This situation has spurred two distinct debates on the role of social and personal responsibility for health in reducing the burden of lifestyle-related morbidity. First, the need for health promotion raises questions pertaining the respective responsibilities of the authorities and of each individual in reducing the exposure to particular risk factors, to avert illness before it occurs. Prospective appeals to personal health responsibility are often understood as encouragements to take responsibility for one's health, aiming at raising awareness on the consequences of harmful behaviour ( Wikler, 2002). Here, controversies persist about the governments' role in preventing people from adopting unhealthy behaviours, as some might view interventions that entail education, regulation and taxation as infringements of self-determination and liberty of action ( Childress et al., 2002; Wikler, 2002; Jochelson, 2006; Sunstein, 2006; Calman, 2009).

Second, questions on health responsibility arise when citizens become patients and require treatment for diseases that occurred or worsened because of their lifestyle. Retrospective forms of personal health responsibility could be ascribed when the individual's past actions are identified as the main cause of a disease ( Bærøe and Cappelen, 2015). As healthcare authorities face difficult priority-setting problems, the possibility to ration healthcare based on individual health behaviours is recurrently debated ( Minkler, 1999; Feiring, 2008; Sharkey and Gillam, 2010; Schirmer and Michailakis, 2011; Friesen, 2016; Owen‐Smith et al., 2018).

Some countries have proposed policies that consider personal responsibility as a criterion for healthcare coverage and access ( Laverty and Harris, 2018), applying diversified co-payments and waiting lists or excluding certain treatments from the basket of public healthcare services when the disease is 'self-inflicted' ( Sabik and Lie, 2008; Ter Meulen and Maarse, 2008; Schmidt, 2009a, b; Pillutla et al., 2018). Conditional access to healthcare is often grounded in the belief that in order to access benefits, individuals are expected to contribute in socially responsible ways, and that this responsibility signals a membership in the moral community ( Buyx, 2008; Schwartz, 2009; Stegeman et al., 2014; Laverty and Harris, 2018). Others, as Norway, have argued against such criterion, stating that society ought to assist the worst-off, notwithstanding the presumed cause of illness ( Meld. St. 34, (2015-2016); NOU 1987: 23; NOU 1997: 18).

While most societies recognise that both the authorities and the individual have a responsibility in health, public attitudes on these issues vary. There is evidence that some would accept giving less priority to patients that are responsible for their illness ( Gu et al., 2015). Previous research on the views of the general public has identified personal responsibility for health as a relevant (but not pivotal) criterion for healthcare prioritisation, with a support varying with priority-setting contexts and research methodologies ( Ubel et al., 2001; Wilmot and Ratcliffe, 2002; Wittenberg et al., 2003; Ter Meulen and Maarse, 2008; Dolan and Tsuchiya, 2009; Gollust and Lynch, 2011; Edlin et al., 2012; Stegeman et al., 2014; Whitty et al., 2014; Ratcliffe et al., 2017). Higher support towards differentiation in access to healthcare among men and non-smokers has been identified ( Ubel et al., 2001; Stegeman et al., 2014). Others have highlighted that individuals supporting weak governmental engagement in healthcare tend to attribute causal responsibility for illness to certain groups ( Gollust and Lynch, 2011). Van Exel et al. (2015) found that personal responsibility was not relevant for priority-setting decisions to respondents associated with the egalitarian viewpoint, which they defined as characterised by a focus on solidarity, entitlement and equality of access. Less attention has been paid to the public's view on social responsibility for health, but recent findings suggest that populations targeted by governmental interventions are less supportive of these interventions ( Gyrd-Hansen and Kjaer, 2015), while the non-smokers and the physically active support lifestyle-changing interventions more than pharmacological medication ( Jarbol et al., 2017).

This body of research is fragmented, and we still know little about the relationship between individual characteristics and attitudes towards health responsibility. Using Norway as a case, the present study examines the public's views on health responsibility and conditional health policy and analyses how attitudes vary across groups according to self-reported health, health-related lifestyle and political orientation. Finally, we discuss the contribution of this study to the literature on the division of health responsibilities between the authorities and the individual.

Methods and Data

Study Design

This is a cross-sectional study conducted in Norway using survey data. The aim of the study was to estimate the public support for personal and social responsibility for health and to investigate the association between these attitudes and personal characteristics using multiple linear regression analysis.

Study Setting

Norway has a publicly financed, universal healthcare system with compulsory membership. Approximately 85 per cent of the total healthcare expenditure is funded through public sources with small user co-payments at point of access ( Ringard et al., 2013; OECD, 2017). The Norwegian system remains grounded in the principles of equality in access and solidarity towards the disadvantaged. The allocation of resources in healthcare (including the criteria for accessing services and for setting waiting lists) rests on three criteria: the expected health gain, the cost-effectiveness of the intervention and the severity of the condition ( Lindemark, 2016; Pasient- og brukerrettighetsloven, 1999). The Norwegian authorities have been reluctant to include personal responsibility, understood as the patient's self-responsibility for the condition and compliance to treatment, to the set of criteria used in priority-setting decisions ( Meld. St. 34, (2015-2016); NOU 1987: 23; NOU 1997: 18). On the other hand, the engagement of the authorities in the promotion of healthy lifestyles through soft and hard policies constitutes a core element for public health policy ( Meld. St. 34 (2012-2013)).

Data Source and Sample

This study used data from the National Association for Heart and Lung Diseases (LHL)'s 2015 Health Survey. The survey was designed by LHL and the SINTEF Research Institute and covered questions on self-reported health and lifestyle, health responsibilities, health service quality and delivery, priority-setting issues and socio-demographic characteristics. Mail questionnaires were distributed between January and April 2014 to a randomised sample of 7500 persons from the Norwegian Population Register (including 5000 persons between 18 and 75 years old and 2500 between 40 and 75 years old, both patients and non-patients). Persons above 40 years of age were overrepresented to secure a large enough sample of health service users and to obtain a sample of a certain size within the various disease groups. A total of 2689 persons responded, giving a response rate of 35, 9 per cent. It is unclear whether a lower response rate necessarily results in skewed samples and lower representativeness ( Groves 2006; Singer 2006). In order to assess data quality, one should therefore consider representativeness, and not only sample size. The SINTEF Research Institute, who provided the dataset, assessed the sample's representativeness by comparing the composition of the net sample with available population statistics and created population weights based on the distribution of gender, age, education and county of residence. They reported that the results from the weighted and unweighted measurements showed very small differences. For more information on the sampling procedures and on how data representativeness was assessed by SINTEF, see the survey report by Ådnanes and Dyrstad (2014).

Our study used anonymous data provided by SINTEF and was not a biomedical research project, and according to the Norwegian Health Research Act, did not need approval from the Regional Committee for Medical and Research Ethics.

Measures

Dependent variables

Social responsibility for health

Given that the study setting was a National Health Service (NHS), we limited social responsibility to include the duties of the public authorities, disregarding non-governmental actions of the civil society, such as communities, insurers and employers. The support for social responsibility for health was measured through two items: (1) 'To which extent do you think the authorities should take the following actions to maintain and improve the population health? i) information campaigns; ii) facilitate a healthier lifestyle; iii) preventive interventions in the healthcare sector; iv) enact laws that influence the population health', and (2) 'To which extent do you think the authorities should have a responsibility for maintaining and improving your health'? Five response categories were given in both items: 'Not at all', 'A little', 'Somewhat', 'Very much', 'A great deal'. We constructed an index with the average score on the five 5-point Likert-type items and coded the responses 1-5.

Personal responsibility for health

The support for personal responsibility for health was measured by two questions: (1) 'To which extent do you believe that you have a responsibility to take care of your health yourself'? with the response categories 'Not at all', 'A little', 'Somewhat', 'Very much', 'A great deal', and (2) 'To what degree do you agree with the following statement: there should be higher co-payments for the treatment of self-inflicted diseases (for instance caused by smoking)'? with responses on a five-point scale anchored from 'totally disagree' (1) to 'totally agree' (5). Given that the distribution of the responses to the first question was remarkably skewed (with 98 per cent of the responses falling in category four and five), we did not include this item in the regression analysis and only presented the descriptive findings.

Independent variables

Self-reported health

Respondents answered the question 'How do you rate your own health in general'? Possible responses were: 'Very poor', 'Poor', 'Neither poor nor good', 'Good', 'Very good' (coded 1-5). The item was computed into a dichotomous variable denoting 'poor health' for categories 1-3 and 'good health' for categories 4-5 (reference category).

Health-related behaviour

We measured the respondents' lifestyle considering smoking, drinking, eating habits and the reported levels of physical activity. Smokers were asked about the average number of cigarettes smoked in a week. Non-smokers and past-smokers were coded as 'non-smokers', while respondents that reported to smoke one or more cigarettes in a week were categorised as 'current smokers'. Drinking habits were measured through the frequency of alcohol consumption in the past 12 months, and respondents were categorised into 'occasional drinkers' (never drink or up to two or three times a month), 'moderate drinkers' (one to three times a week) and 'active drinkers' (four to seven times a week). The occasional drinkers were used as reference category. For the eating habits, we calculated an average score on a scale from 1 to 5 based on the respondents' self-reported weekly intake of a range of foods (fruits, vegetables, hamburgers, chocolate, pastries, etc.) We then attributed value '1' to the group scoring up to 3.34 on the scale, and value '0' to those scoring 3.34 and over, to isolate the group reporting unhealthy diets. The level of physical activity was measured through the item 'On average, how often are you physically active'? which was then coded into two categories: 'inactive' for once or less than once a week, and the remaining sample coded '0' and used as reference category.

Political orientation

The respondents' political orientation was measured by self-reported voting in the 2013 national parliamentary election. The available options were: The Conservative Party (H) and The Progressive Party (FrP) (right-wing parties), The Christian People's Party (KrF), The Agrarian Party (Sp) and The Liberal Party (V) (center parties), The Labour Party (Ap) and The Socialist Left Party (SV) (socialist parties) and 'others'. Non-responders and non-voters were excluded from the analysis. This variable was used as a proxy of the respondent left or right political orientation.

Controls

Previous research shows that educational level and socio-economic position impact on health, wellbeing and lifestyle ( Bjelland et al., 2008; Strand et al., 2010; Marmot and Bell, 2016). Similarly, education and income correlate with political beliefs ( d'Anjou et al., 1995; Stubager, 2008). Thus, we controlled for the following socio-demographic variables: gender, age (coded: 'under 30', '31 to 60', and 'over 61'), education ('lower' for high-school graduate or lower, and 'higher' for university graduate or higher), household income in NOK (coded: 1= up to 100.000, 2 = 100.000-299.000, 3 = 300.000-599.000, 4 = 600.000-999.000, 5 = 1.000.000-1.499.000, 6 = 1.500.000-1.999.000 and 7= over 2.000.000) and country of birth (non-Norwegian/Norwegian).

Data Analysis

Block-wise multiple linear regression analysis was used to process the data in SPSS 24.0. Two ordinary least squares regression models were carried out to analyse the factors associated with the support for social responsibility for health and for higher co-payments for self-inflicted illnesses (with statistical significance level at 5 per cent). The following predictors were plotted in the models in four blocks: first the socio-demographic variables (gender, age, country of birth, income and education); secondly, the health condition; third, the variables for the health-related behaviour (eating, smoking and drinking habits and the physical activity level); finally, the political parties with The Labour Party as reference category. The models were estimated using fixed effects with dummy-variables for each county, with Oslo as reference category, to control for the geographical variation not included in the model (not reported). Since we had several nominal variables belonging to the same dimension (for instance, four variables measuring lifestyle and seven for the political orientation) adding the variables to the regression model in groups allowed us to compare changes in the models' coefficients and R-squares. Given that many of the independent variables in our model may be highly correlated, there was a potential concern for imprecise estimates due to large variance. However, collinearity diagnostics uncovered no such problems.

Results

Social Responsibility: The Authorities' Role in Individual and Population Health

Our sample included 2689 respondents, among which 54 per cent women, and 57 per cent between 31 and 60 years of age. Individuals with higher and lower education were equally represented and the largest group had a household income ranging from 600.000 to 999.000 NOK (approximately 60.000 to 99.000 EUR). See Supplementary Appendix A for main sample characteristics.

The index measuring the support for social responsibility for health had mean score of 3.4 (st. dev. 0.67) on a scale from one to five, pointing to a moderate support for the engagement of the authorities in improving the population health ( Table 1).

Our regression model explained approximately 5 per cent of the variance in the outcome variable 'Support for social responsibility for health', with a 2 per cent change in R-squared resulting from adding the lifestyle variables to the model.

Women were associated with more positive attitudes towards public health interventions for health promotion ( β = 0.10, P = 0.01), and individuals over 61 years old were less supportive than individuals between 30 and 60 years of age ( β = −0.15, P = 0.01). Moreover, respondents displaying unhealthier eating habits, smokers and physically inactive individuals were also less supportive of health promotion policies that included information, incentives to healthy lifestyles, prevention and regulations ( β = 0.09, P = 0.05; β = −0.13, P = 0.01; β = −0.09, P = 0.05) ( Table 2).

Personal Responsibility for Health: The Individual's Role in Health

The distribution of responses for the two survey items on personal responsibility are reported in Table 3. The survey results showed that the principle of personal responsibility for health was well accepted by most of the respondents, with 98 per cent stating that individuals have 'a great deal' or 'very much' responsibility for their own health. Due to the marginal variation in responses, we decided not to proceed with regression analysis on this item.

Concerning conditional access to healthcare, almost one-third (28 per cent) of the respondents agreed with the idea that patients with self-inflicted illnesses should pay higher co-payments ( Table 3).

The variation in the attitudes was investigated further through multiple linear regression ( Table 4). A negative association with female gender ( β = −0.38, P = 0.01) and a positive association with young age ( β = 0.30, P = 0.05) and income (β = 0.13, P = 0.01) were found to be significant for the support of higher co-payments for self-inflicted diseases. On the other hand, respondents with poorer health were less supportive ( β = −0.29, P = 0.01).

Changes in R-squared values between the blocks in the regression analysis highlight a significant increase in the explanatory power of the model (up to 15 per cent of the variance) when adding the variables on lifestyle and political orientation. Smokers were more negative towards this policy than non-smokers ( β = −0.90, P = 0.01), and the support decreased with lower levels of exercise ( β = −0.22, P = 0.01). Having voted for the three main conservative parties (H, FrP and KrF) was associated with higher levels of support for introducing a criterion that diversifies co-payments based on the individual's responsibility for the disease ( β = 0.17, P = 0.05; β = 0.30, P = 0.01; β = 0.31, P = 0.05).

Discussion

Co-Responsibility for Health

The way we understand the locus of responsibility, social or personal, constitutes a fundamental element for how we think of causes of disease, different roles in prevention and attribution of blame. Thus, we studied attitudes towards policies of prevention, where the authorities can play more or less pivotal roles, and policies of access, where responsibilities are reflected in the balance between rights and obligations of the individual and of the collectivity.

We found relatively high levels of support for both social and personal health responsibility and some support for conditional policies, as 28 per cent of the respondents agreed to some extent that patients seeking treatment for 'self-inflicted illnesses' should pay higher co-payments.

These findings suggest that in a NHS, a strong support for personal responsibility for health does not exclude a significant support for social responsibility, and vice versa. This is corroborated by a significant positive correlation between the two dimensions ( r = 0.15, P < 0.01, not reported). Our findings on the public attitudes can support the view that health responsibilities are 'co-responsibilities'. The term 'co-responsibility' has been proposed as an alternative to the binary thinking around responsibility for health ( Schmidt, 2009a; Devisch, 2012), but the definition of this concept is still at an early stage. Devisch (2012) suggests that:

' Co-responsibility means that responsibility is never me or the other's, but the intermingling of the other's and me, not in the way that they are shared, but that they intrude or contaminate one another'. ( Devisch, 2012: 146).

It is up for debate whether the term 'co-responsibility' would imply that health responsibilities are simply 'shared', or 'intertwined' in a more complex way, and our empirical findings do not provide an answer to this question. Still, given the importance of both individual behaviour and the societal conditions influencing this behaviour for population health, both responsibilities are called for and justified. Schmidt (2009a) points out:

' Since health is affected both by personal behaviour and factors generally beyond immediate individual control (...), it is neither an exclusive matter of personal or social responsibility. As the element of personal control admits of degrees, conceptually, personal responsibility also needs to admit of degrees. By necessity, health responsibilities are therefore co-responsibilities'. ( Schmidt, 2009a: 24)

A co-responsibility approach to health responsibilities as the one sketched above understands personal and social responsibility as complementary, in the sense that the presence of the one enables the other, and vice versa.

In practice, a specific social responsibility for health can be observed when the authorities are invested with the role of providing for healthcare and influencing individual behaviour towards healthier lifestyles. In a comparative study of Nordic countries, Vallgårda (2011) points out that Norwegian public health policy has distinguished itself for having a strong social-democratic focus that allows the implementation of 'less liberal' policies to address individual behaviours, for instance, by applying extensive regulations on alcohol and tobacco consumption and 'sugar-taxes' on unhealthy foods. One could argue that such policies put individuals in a better position to make responsible choice.

Our study suggests that this approach to population health is reflected in the general public, as we found a moderate consensus for a range of policies associated with social responsibility for health. We showed that respondents across political parties and health conditions agree with having authorities that engage in public health policies that promote and safeguard individual health. On the other hand, it seems like individuals that are usually the target of these public health interventions, i.e. persons that would need external help to achieve behavioural change, not always appreciate this kind of interference. This is the case of the physically inactive, those with diets high in fat and sugars, and the smokers.

Furthermore, the study showed a strong agreement with the idea that individuals have a great deal of responsibility for their own health. As a general principle, personal responsibility for health might be complementary to social responsibility. For instance, in some clinical settings, patient compliance and motivation would be called for because they improve the prospects of treatment.

On the other hand, it is a different question whether a lack of compliance (or personal responsibility in general) should weaken the patient's claim on collective resources. As pointed out in the introduction, the Norwegian authorities have been historically reluctant to applying a criterion of personal responsibility for 'self-inflicted disease' to priority-setting decisions ( Meld. St. 34, (2015-2016); NOU 1987: 23; NOU 1997: 18). A recent qualitative study on Norwegian stakeholders' views on priority-setting also revealed that the majority opposed to the application of this principle to healthcare prioritisation ( Aidem, 2017). Our study confirms this finding, as most of the respondents disagreed with the statement on introducing higher co-payments for self-inflicted illnesses. Also, the fact that only a third of the respondents would be willing to attribute some kind of financial responsibility for individual health-related choices, suggests a gap between the endorsement of personal responsibility as a principle, and a hypothetical application of this principle to actual policies of access.

Political Orientation

Studies on attitudes towards the welfare state suggest that left-wing political alignment is associated with greater approval for strong governmental involvement in healthcare ( Gevers et al., 2000; Jæger , 2006; Dallinger, 2010), and that political orientation is connected to people's perception of the role of social conditions and individual choice in determining health ( Robert and Booske, 2011; Lundell et al., 2013). Similarly, Kannan and Veazie (2018) found that a larger portion of Democrats and Liberals, as opposed to Republicans and Conservatives, thought that the environment is the most important factor in health and thus agreed on the importance of preventive medicine. For this reason, we included political orientation in the study of the public attitudes towards social responsibility, assuming that the support would be linked to the individual political orientation. Our results showed otherwise, as there was no statistically significant difference in the support for social responsibility for health between the group of voters to the left and to the right. This finding leads us to believe that in Norway the support for extensive public health policies is shared across political views.

Moreover, we expected that the emphasis on social equality and solidarity, distinctive of the political left, would clash with an excessive attribution of responsibility for health to the single individual. In their review of studies on how policy-makers allocate resources to mental health services, Corrigan and Watson identified political ideology as a significant factor for distributive patterns. In particular, right-wing political orientation was associated with a tendency towards punishing individuals with a personal responsibility for their illness ( Corrigan and Watson, 2003). Similarly, studies investigating the attribution of obesity to personal conduct and lack of self-determination point to an association between the emphasis on personal responsibility and right-wing conservativism ( Crandall and Schiffhauer, 1998). Our study partially confirmed this, as having voted for right-conservatives was found to be a significant predictor for the support of introducing higher co-payments when accessing treatment for so-called 'irresponsible' behaviours. It must be noted that, in general, the Norwegian conservative parties have not been active promoters of higher co-payments and the idea that access to services should be as free as possible is generally shared by both The Labour Party and The Conservative Party ( Arbeiderpartiet, 2013; Høyre, 2013). We believe that the system of beliefs held by voters when they make-up their minds about the role of personal responsibility might influence which considerations become relevant for their decision. Thus, right-wing conservatives would use 'merit' and 'desert' as guiding principles, rather than 'equality', when deciding upon the rightfulness of policies that affect access to treatment.

Lifestyle Preferences

Previous research shows that instead of seeking the maximisation of their health, individuals with detrimental health habits are negative towards interventions targeting their behaviours. Extensive international research on alcohol consumption, for instance, points to a negative association between drinking and support, with heavy drinkers being less supportive of paternalistic interventions ( Latimer et al., 2001; Harwood et al., 2004). Several studies on Nordic populations confirm these patterns ( Nordlund, 2007; Holmila et al., 2009; Storvoll and Halkjelsvik, 2013). Assuming averseness towards behavioural change, we expected that individuals that reported unhealthy lifestyles (with high-sugar and high-fat diets, low degree of exercise, smokers and regular drinkers) would oppose any interference with their lifestyle choices.

In both regression models, adding the lifestyle variables on smoking, drinking, eating and activity habits increased significantly the explanatory power of the model. The picture drawn by our analysis, however, was quite heterogeneous, showing that different behaviours (smoking, drinking, eating and exercising habits) related differently to the attitudes towards responsibility. We noted that drinking habits had no significant effect on our outcome variables. On the other hand, smoking and exercising once a week or less were significant predictors both for social responsibility and for the co-payments item, with these groups being less supportive of the role of the authorities in promoting health and strongly against the introduction of co-payments for diseases related to their lifestyle.

Assuming that a large part of public health policy targets such personal behaviours, this evidence could suggest that individuals engaging in detrimental habits (in this case, smokers and the physically inactive) display a preference towards limited public commitment in improving their health, but at the same time, do not want to be imposed higher co-payments because of their lifestyle.

This situation goes into the discussion on the fair distribution of burdens in society and the extent to which we can achieve equality in health, and through which instruments. Scholars have suggested that equalising efforts should not include inequalities caused by 'preferences', meaning that society should not make up for 'voluntary disadvantages' ( Roemer, 1993). An important argumentation against holding individuals responsible for health outcomes related to their past behaviour has been the uncertainty concerning the voluntariness and degree of control over their actions, i.e. the 'avoidability objection' ( Feiring, 2008; Bærøe and Cappelen, 2015). If our interpretation of the evidence is correct, our results could in principle challenge this objection. While it is true that 'lighting another cigarette' out of habit and nicotine addiction is partly an involuntary choice, being reluctant to the authorities' commitment towards making the healthy choice easier, could be viewed as a preference for maintaining that habit. This finding fuels the discussion on the justice in conditional access to healthcare as a priority-setting policy. Given a system based on solidarity, and a mutual expectation of individuals for behaving in socially responsible ways, healthy individuals may view others' preference for detrimental behaviours as counterproductive to their financial contribution to the collective system, thus advocating for more personal responsibility for health behavior. It must be noted that there are other powerful objections to applying personal responsibility as a criterion for access to health care ( Buyx, 2008; Sharkey and Gillam, 2010) and we do not intend to settle this complex discussion. Moreover, given that cultural and institutional factors influence individual lifestyle preferences, concerns of social justice have challenged the fairness of responsibility-tracking health policies ( Voigt, 2010). Still, given the significance of political orientation and individual lifestyle preferences, we believe this study brings us closer to understanding the nature of varying attitudes towards social and personal responsibility for health.

Study Limitations

The application of quantitative survey methods to study complex social science phenomena such as population attitudes requires some simplification and abstraction. Yet, what makes the operationalisation possible might put limitations to the interpretation of the final findings. In our case, the validity of using the political party chosen at the last election as a proxy of the individual's general political orientation might be challenged. This variable is an indication of where the respondent collocates herself on the left-right political spectrum at one point in time and does not provide an exact measurement of the background values and beliefs behind the party choice, as our survey did not per se include questions on social and political beliefs. We assumed that the decision of voting for a specific party at the national elections is based on the acknowledgement that the political values the party historically stands for, at least partially, are shared by the individual as well. Similarly, the validity and reliability of using self-reported lifestyle can be problematic, as studies have shown discrepancies between the actual food and alcohol intake and the one reported ( Stockwell et al., 2004; Schoeller, 1990).

We must also note some limitations regarding our outcome variables, measured by the survey items on social and personal responsibility. First, since we were interested in the attitudes towards allocating responsibilities to the authorities for promoting population health, we decided to aggregate the items into one index showing higher or lower support for social responsibility. A limitation arising from this choice is that we did not distinguish between the support for 'soft' or 'hard' public health policies (for instance, health education vs. regulation). Second, the respondents' understanding of the survey item 'enact laws that influence the population health' could be limited, since respondents were not informed that regulations might influence individual behaviour indirectly, rather than restricting individual choices. Finally, the support for conditional access to healthcare services based on personal responsibility was only measured in the hypothetical case of higher co-payments for access. This means that other policies of conditionality were not surveyed (such us mechanisms of deprioritisation on the waiting-lists or treatment denial) and the criterion was not analysed in relation to other criteria, limiting the generalisability of the results to other priority-setting mechanisms and trade-offs.

Implications and Further Research

As noted in a previous study by Gyrd-Hansen and Kjaer (2015), an important implication of the fact that individuals with detrimental health habits seem to oppose public health policies for health promotion, is that future policies targeting lifestyles should not be justified on grounds of libertarianism as 'help to self-help'. On the contrary, the nature of some of these policies might be characterised as 'paternalistic', since paternalism is defined as the interference of a state with an individual, against their will, for the individual's own good ( Dworkin, 2017). Still, comprehensive public health policies might be justified with arguments related to equity and social justice, but this is also disputed ( Wilkinson, 2018).

Furthermore, personal responsibility for health as a principle was widely accepted and we observed that conditional access to care based on health-related behaviour was viewed by a small part of the public as a fair exception from the solidarity paradigm. We also showed that individual preferences and ideological beliefs play a role for understanding these attitudes. Further research on this topic needs to analyse more in depth, which grounds people base these attitudes on: is there a moralistic judgement on whether irresponsible individuals deserve help from the collectivity? What is the role of misconceptions and stereotypes around the causes of disease?

Finally, our analysis was limited to factors at the individual level, such as socio-demographic characteristics, political orientation, self-reported health status and behaviour. More sophisticated multilevel analyses could include cultural and institutional factors and thus identify mechanisms of issue framing and social habit formation that impact on how we understand health responsibilities. The fact that our models explained only a small part of the variation in how social and personal responsibility are viewed, suggests that there are several other factors to consider. Still, by setting a starting point in the investigation of the relevance of personal and social responsibility for health in Norway, our research lays the ground for building more complex analyses on this salient topic.

Acknowledgements

We thank SINTEF and LHL for making the survey data available for academic purposes. Only the authors of this article, however, are responsible for the analysis and the interpretation of the results included in the paper.

Funding

This work was supported by the University of Oslo (no grant numbers applied).

Conflict of interest

None declared.

References

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Being Healthy, Being Sick, Being Responsible: Attitudes towards Responsibility for Health in a Public Healthcare System

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Lifestyle-induced diseases are becoming a burden on healthcare, actualizing the discussion on health responsibilities. Using data from the National Association for Heart and Lung Diseases (LHL)'s 2015 Health Survey ( N = 2689), this study examined the public's attitudes towards personal and social health responsibility in a Norwegian population.

# data[].attributes.body
Lifestyle plays an important role in our physical health. According to WHO, 60% of related factors to individual health and quality of life are correlated to lifestyle.  Millions of people follow an unhealthy lifestyle. Hence, they encounter illness, disability and even death. For example, an unhealthy diet can lead to obesity and heart diseases. Secondly, by creating a type of environment like having others that are around you to maintain a healthy lifestyle and have good habits which would help empower and support the people. The environment we have tends to affect one's habit. Having a good environment would better influence one’s habit and bring good effect. The environment is the thing that we constantly interact with. We have the choice to choose what we interact with and what lifestyle we have. With a good environmental influence, it allows us to be more healthy physically.

Thus I agree that physical health is ultimately an individual’s responsibility.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598168/
an individuals lifestyle choices plays a major role in their own health condition and many of these choices can lead to certain fatal diseases and just problems regarding health in general and on the other hand those who actually do take care of their health responsibly spends less and have a significantly better and healthier life due to this.

# data[].attributes.body
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598168/

It is unfair to hold individuals responsible for their health if they cannot make rational decisions due to mentally incompetence, addictive behaviours or cultural pressures.
Also, diseases and disabilities result from a complex interplay of genetics. Individuals cannot choose these genes as they are born with them. Although individuals play a major role in maintaining their physical health, they should not entirely be held responsible.

# data[].attributes.body
Singaporeans are increasingly aware of what they should be doing to keep fit, and the food and sports industries have responded with a raft of new products for every taste. However, none of this will make a difference unless individuals change their own attitudes towards healthcare. It's time for us to be a much smarter nation when it comes to healthcare, and to use the technology that we have at our disposal to tackle this problem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With recent innovations in consumer technology, we are on the cusp of a brave new world where everyday appliances can not only encourage healthier habits, but can also collect relevant data to provide an early warning signal about the onset of illnesses.

Examples include smartphone-based glucose monitors for diabetics, to the potential in the near future for smart toothbrushes that can be used to detect an oncoming cold by spotting changes in saliva.

However, all of this data is only beneficial if patients know how to interpret and apply it.

But the FHI findings show that Singapore isn't quite there yet.

We spoke to more than 33,000 people and healthcare professionals across the world and found that, although the majority of Singaporeans recognise the benefits of connected care technology, as many as 35 per cent of those already using it do not understand how to interpret the results.

This mirrors an international challenge that many other developed nations are grappling with. At a time when shopping, banking and even dating online are commonplace, it seems people have generally been slower to embrace digitalisation in healthcare.

Public education campaigns and training, particularly for higher-risk groups like the elderly, can go some way towards addressing this.

Health and consumer technology organisations also have an important role to play in designing healthcare technologies to be more affordable and accessible to a wider audience beyond early adopters, while the Government can encourage innovation in this field through subsidies, business incentives and incubator schemes.

However, none of this will make a difference unless individuals change their own attitudes towards healthcare.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Commentary: Let's exercise ownership over our health, not wait for illness to set in

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With recent innovations in consumer technology, we are on the cusp of a brave new world where everyday appliances can not only encourage healthier habits, but can also collect relevant data to provide an early warning signal about the onset of illnesses.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/cna-lifestyle-wellness/commentary-lets-exercise-ownership-over-our-health-not-wait-illness-set-841736

While the government and private sectors have played their role in tackling problems such as chronic diseases, it is true that our individual responsibility is more important. At first, it may seem that the government's responsibility is more important. However, over time, it is our individuals' responsibility to imply the government's saying and put it into action. For example, recent innovations in consumer technology, we are on the cusp of a brave new world where everyday appliances can not only encourage healthier habits, but can also collect relevant data to provide an early warning signal about the onset of illnesses. These include smartphone-based glucose monitors for diabetics, to the potential in the near future for smart toothbrushes that can be used to detect an oncoming cold by spotting changes in saliva. However, for this to benefit individuals, it is their responsibility to interpret and apply it in their lives. Individuals ultimately need to take on more personal responsibility for monitoring, managing and maintaining their own health than they currently are. And this needs to happen at every life stage, rather than being kick-started by the onset of illness.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With recent innovations in consumer technology, we are on the cusp of a brave new world where everyday appliances can not only encourage healthier habits, but can also collect relevant data to provide an early warning signal about the onset of illnesses.

Examples include smartphone-based glucose monitors for diabetics, to the potential in the near future for smart toothbrushes that can be used to detect an oncoming cold by spotting changes in saliva.

However, all of this data is only beneficial if patients know how to interpret and apply it.

But the FHI findings show that Singapore isn't quite there yet.

We spoke to more than 33,000 people and healthcare professionals across the world and found that, although the majority of Singaporeans recognise the benefits of connected care technology, as many as 35 per cent of those already using it do not understand how to interpret the results.

This mirrors an international challenge that many other developed nations are grappling with. At a time when shopping, banking and even dating online are commonplace, it seems people have generally been slower to embrace digitalisation in healthcare.

Public education campaigns and training, particularly for higher-risk groups like the elderly, can go some way towards addressing this.

Health and consumer technology organisations also have an important role to play in designing healthcare technologies to be more affordable and accessible to a wider audience beyond early adopters, while the Government can encourage innovation in this field through subsidies, business incentives and incubator schemes.

However, none of this will make a difference unless individuals change their own attitudes towards healthcare.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Commentary: Let's exercise ownership over our health, not wait for illness to set in

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With recent innovations in consumer technology, we are on the cusp of a brave new world where everyday appliances can not only encourage healthier habits, but can also collect relevant data to provide an early warning signal about the onset of illnesses.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598168/

It is unfair to hold individuals responsible for their own health as they cannot make sound health‐related choices due to ignorance, mental incompetence, addictive behaviors or cultural pressures. Holding individuals entirely responsible for their own health conflicts with medicine's obligation to treat the sick and society's obligation to take care of vulnerable people. Although individuals should play an important role in maintaining their own health, but they should not held entire responsibility for it. Assuming that the responsibility for health rests either with individuals or with society, it follows that society should also help to promote health and prevent disease.

# data[].attributes.body
Good physical health is ultimately one's responsibility, it is all based on the lifestyle we chose and our choices in life, not others. For example, "6 of the 10 leading factors contributing to the global burden of disease are lifestyle related: unsafe sex, high blood pressure, tobacco use, alcohol use, high cholesterol and obesity", this tells us that bad lifestyle choices are related to bad health and thus our own responsibility to take care of. People that accomplish the recommended amount of physical activities per week are said to feel better and since all individuals have a right to eat what they want its up to them to choose what goes into their bodies, making them feel better and physically better as well.

# data[].attributes.body
Good physical health is essentially one's utmost responsibility. The most basic step everyone can take is by limiting alcohol,sugar,salt and fat. Research in the UK has shown that almost two-thirds of adults in UK are overweight or obese, and, shockingly, so, too, are a growing number of children. Even reducing these by small amounts can make us healthier. It can help us manage our weight better and reduce our risk of chronic diseases like heart disease, stroke, Type 2 diabetes, some cancers and chronic kidney disease. Hence, one way of maintaining good physical health is by reducing certain food intake.

# data[].attributes.body
https://nursinganswers.net/essays/health-individual-societal-responsibility-6551.php
one is not responsible for their health if they choose to take care of it or not to. However, we are normally advised by our doctors when we are at health risk during yearly medical checkups or when we are sick. In spite of, some countries such as New Zealand, its more of a societal responsibility, which is more of a contribution towards health of other people, like education and training, tax and benefits to caregivers, respite care and more...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Health: An Individual or Societal Responsibility?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abstract This paper aims to discuss the current issue on responsibility on health and its effect on the New Zealand healthcare policy as well as in the international scale. This paper will also highl