Talk:Salutogenesis

Pasteur's Deathbed quote

It seems that this quote is not from an RS, especially when Pasteur's biography didn't mention it, and it only appeared about 100 years after the event. Not only that, it appears only in references attempting to debunk germ theory in some manner. This is a popular meme not dissimilar to Darwin's "deathbed confession". Besides, as it's written, it's synthesis anyway. Shot info (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A quote but not from the source

This is what the source actually is

The sense of coherence, then, can formally be defined as: a global orientation that expresses the extent to which one has a pervasive, enduring though dynamic feeling of confidence that (1) the stimuli deriving from one's internal and external environments in the course of living are structured, predictable and explicable; (2) the resources are available to one to meet the demands posed by these stimuli; and (3) these demands are challenges, worthy of investment and engagement.

Which is a little bit different from what the "quote" says. So either the source isn't the source. Or the quote needs altering. Shot info (talk) 01:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The quote needs to be changed to the above. The definition in the article is Antonovsky's original formulation. In his second book on the topic, he explains why he added the third factor, the sense of meaning. Pgm8693 (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this criticism is wrong. This is a direct qute from Antonovsky 1987, page 19. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenmanarch (talk • contribs) 00:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Misleading statement

I have taken a misleading statement:

• Though modern medicine has increasingly come to ask about the origin of illness, Antonovsky suggested that an equally important question to pose is: "what is the origin of health?"

and replaced it with this one, but it is still somewhat misleading:

• Though medicine has always sought to understand the origins of illness, Antonovsky suggested that an equally important question to pose is: "what is the origin of health?"

Medicine has always sought to understand both the origins of illness and health, so this statement needs better phrasing that doesn't seem to imply that Antonovsky invented the concept, while allowing that he placed emphasis on it, something which is by no means unique to him. Many notable physicians have done the same. Please suggest better wording. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Major edit

• The revision: Revision as of 00:29, 20 March 2009 ... was by me ... I wasn't signed in.Pgm8693 (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have re-written this so that it focuses on the salutogenic model proposed by Antonovsky. The term may be used in other ways ... but it is a formal theory that is specifically concerned with the health-stress-coping paradigm. It's not about eating vegetables will make you healthy. I have also clarified the theoretical formulation for the introduction of the sense of coherence.

Most all of this comes from the preface to his 1987 book. I have summarized his summary of the model.

When I get a chance, I will go back and edit the sense of coherence section ... it needs work.

The primary quotation is correct. The explanation of how it develops is not how Antonovsky described it (see page 186 in his 1979 book). The definitions of the three components are all essentially wrong.

Pgm8693 (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Major deletion

I took out the following text. It really doesn't fit, in my opinion. None of this has anything to do with Antonovsky's theories or his salutogenic model.

• Antonovsky argued that the experience of well-being constitutes a Sense of Coherence (SOC). Though medicine has always sought to understand the origins of illness, Antonovsky suggested that an equally important question to pose is: "what is the origin of health?"

• This question hearkens back to the discovery of pathogens in the seventeenth century, when a great scientific controversy broke out over whether these were indeed the true causes of illness, or whether illness began when health was no longer being sustained by the body. In the latter case, pathogens would be merely secondary agents.[citation needed]

• Even in recent times, Antonovsky was by no means the first to attempt a reorientation towards health per se: health centers and wellness clinics have been known for some time, and many doctors have intuitively attempted to support the health of their patients. Antonovsky was successful in making new inroads on the conventional medical mindset, however, and salutogenesis is now in the process of becoming part of standard medical discourse.[citation needed]

Pgm8693 (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Major revisions March 2009

I have largely and extensively rewritten this article so that it accurately reflects the use of the term salutogenesis as formulated by Antonovsky. The term has been adopted in fields other than psychology and medical sociology to describe almost any general focus on health. That seems fine, but the term was in fact coined by Antonovsky (he described it as a neologism) for the purpose of clarifying theoretical and empirical relationships between health, stress and coping.

Given that he coined the term to describe his theories (and not for the purpose of talking about how eating vegetables or whatever else will make you healthy), the entry here should focus on the term as a label for his theories.

In editing this article, I have also clarified how the sense of coherence fits in to the salutogenic model. I think that these edits accurately reflect the major elements of his writing. Pgm8693 (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

removed two links from further reading

I removed these two links after reviewing them. Both of these further readings distort, confuse and misrepresent the theoretical formulation for the sense of coherence. The problem is that they are poorly written, simply incorrect and don't get it right. They would be ok if they claimed to offer an alternative viewpoint on the theory. Instead, they simply mis-state the theory, as if they hardly bothered at all to read the original work. My suspicion is that they are based on secondary sources that were of dubious quality and that these two readings are part of an incestuous relationship (i.e., somebody got it wrong, and then people copied among themselves). Pgm8693 (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

edit of DGG edits

• If it says "They present the relationship as a continuous variable ...", it's not clear if "they" refers to Antonovsky's theories or to the traditional view. I changed "They present" to "He described."

• DGG changed "not all individuals have negative health outcomes in response to stress" to "not all individuals have negative health outcomes in response to it." It is not clear what it is. I changed it back to "in response to stress."

• If you re-arrange the sentence about how many women survived the concentration camps, then the word "only" doesn't make sense re: the number with positive health, so I took out the word "only." I think the meaning was clearer with the sentence arranged the other way, but whatever.

• "These resources are any coping resource" ... Bringing back in the notion that there are any number of different GRRs (which was edited out), I changed this to: "A GRR is any coping resource that is ..."

• "He said that: "beyond the specific stress factors ..." He didn't say this, someone else did (referenced). So I removed "he said that:" and just left the quote.

• I didn't change "led" back to "lead" ... that would be wrong. But I have to say that English teachers are the only ones who know the correct past tense of this verb ... the rest of us perpetrate this error endlessly.

• Pgm8693 (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not here to fight about copyedits. I'm not an English teacher, btw. DGG (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Other authors

This concept is now used widely outside of Antonovsky's work; the article should reflect this wider usage. hgilbert (talk) 00:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

link to Peckham Experiment

When reading this I was struck by the connections between this and The Peckham Experiment.

Searching on Google, I find that others have made this link -- e.g.

• the collection "Well-being and Beyond: Broadening the Public and Policy Discourse";
• Health through community cooperation
• An asset-based approach: An alternative health promotion strategy?
• http://www.totalhealthmatters.co.uk/Presentation%20at%20the%2012th%20annual%20public%20health%20forum%2019th%20April.pdf

What's a good way of making this link explicit in the article? Simon Grant (talk) 10:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Given no response to this suggestion, I'll add a link under "See also". Hope that's OK with everyone. Simon Grant (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Multiple issues?

I find it odd that the multiple issues tag is still there, ostensibly from 2009 but actually from 2015. Do people feel the issues have been resolved? Certainly there are plenty of references now. Does it still read like a personal essay, as it may have done in 2009? Simon Grant (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The last paragraph in the "Sense of Coherence" section still feels essay-like and could probably be replaced with quotes from Antonovsky's work. I've however removed the "essay-like" template after edits to the more recently added "Salutogenesis Moving Forward" section. Deltasct (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

"Salutogenesis Moving Forward"

Isn't this a variant of the bogus allopathic medicine claims, used to promote altmed? —PaleoNeonate – 01:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I've shortened the essay-like section and incorporated it into the existing section on medicine. I hope my formulation is suitably chosen to be neutral and value-free, at least with respect to the motivation or suitability for changes to health practices. Deltasct (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)