Primary Health Care vs. Biomedical Model
Some of the key principles of the primary health care model (PHC) are equitable care distribution, community participation, and the utilization of appropriate technologies. The first aspect considers the economic and social aspects of healthcare, whereas the biomedical principle does not consider them at all. The first principle postulated that care should be provided equally to each person and each person should be provided easy access to it. Moreover, in accordance with PHC, healthcare facilities should be spread evenly across the territory of a state in order not to exclude anyone from having his health needs addressed.
The community participation principle also considers a sociological factor in the treatment and prevention of diseases. Family, neighbors, and close friends are also the stakeholders of PH, which are responsible for the health and well-being of themselves and their close ones. The biomedical model also did not concern itself with social factors. PHC stated that in treatment and prevention, technology should be chosen according to its affordability, effectiveness, and acceptability to the target population. In a biomedical model, technology was considered an integral part of disease treatment but was not given as much special attention as in PHC.
The biomedical model relies solely on the understanding of health through a prism of the physical condition of a patient. An absence of deviations in physical metrics of a person was considered a state of health, and a primary goal of the caregiver. It may be assumed that this model focused more on the internal factors of disease management than on the external. The latter is given more attention in PHC.
Adversary vs. Insight Model
The adversary model in Jean Coreil’s view is the model of healthcare that emerged in the 1950s and represented an opposition between traditional and modern health practices. The progressive thinkers considered all traditional methods of treatment outdated and subject to total conversion to the new and advanced ones. In addition, the proponents of traditional approaches were always considered as ‘adversaries’ of the emerging practices.
The insight model uses an integrative methodology towards the implementation of new treatment options with regard to and care for the culturally-meaningful ones. The implementation usually followed the procedure of identification of those methods that were meaningful to the population in order to establish areas where innovations were possible and less intrusive. This model featured care for traditions and at the same time the passion for progress. It is in the unity of two the proponents of this model saw the real benefit. Due to the less painful and consistent way of introducing new techniques this model was more culturally aware and sensitive.
In comparison to the adversary model, the insight model seems to be a better choice for developing countries due to the fact that many of such states still exercise health practices that were used centuries ago by their ancestors. It may seem ineffective and counterproductive, but such practices often have deep spiritual and cultural meaning to the people. Therefore, they doubtfully part with them easily. It takes great patience and analysis that is presupposed by the insight model to introduce new and effective solutions with a higher chance of them being utilized to the benefit of the people. On the other hand, the brutal and culturally disrespectful approach imbued with the nature of the adversary model seems to be a vain effort, as most of the innovations are likely to be rejected.