The Galway Consensus

Abstract

Health promotion has been a well-recognized field of work for nearly four decades. Health education has an even longer period of recognition. Across the globe there are numerous departments of health promotion and health education in academia, government and the private sector. There are many professional organizations for health promoters and educators, most notably the IUHPE. Despite this widespread recognition, these fields of work have not managed to develop the discipline base of many established fields of science and research. The Galway Consensus Conference initiated a longterm effort to address issues in capacity building and competencies in health promotion and education. The articles in this publication present many of the key considerations that led conference attendees to a Galway Consensus Statement that can now be taken forward as a foundation discussion document. Health promotion as a field has struggled with a definition of itself. Suffice it to say that despite many efforts to provide a universally acceptable unifying definition, such a definition remains elusive. Perhaps this is the strength of the concept of health promotion. It is a diverse field, embracing multiple disciplines, multiple methods and multiple approaches. Though difficult to define, everyone seems to know what it is. Health education had a more traditional gestation, particularly in the West. It had a strong disciplinary base in educational and social psychology. Early on there were widely used textbooks and well defined relevant curricula. In recent years, practitioners in health promotion and health education have seemingly merged into a singularity. But this is not entirely true, and the discussions at Galway and the papers that follow reflect similarities and differences. One thing seems certain: for health promotion and education it is advantageous to develop a general agreement on the core competencies for practitioners. The Galway Consensus Statement reflects the combined and careful thinking of a number of individuals from various perspectives embracing the best of health promotion and education practice. Nonetheless the group was aware that they did not represent all of the variation in the practice of health promotion globally. The Consensus Statement is to be viewed as a living document that will form a guide for further discussion, amplification and even disagreement. Such is the merit of a document intended to lead to a global agreement on the core principles and work of health promotion. The Galway Conference did not really come to terms with the issue of accreditation for health promotion and education. Nonetheless, this was a topic that was discussed at some length. Consensus on accreditation seems far less likely than on core competencies. This is a debate that separates along two fault lines, geographical and ideological. There is no doubt that many countries view the credentialling of health educators as vital in building infrastructure for the field in their country. Credentialling is seen as the means to have a uniformly trained cadre of practitioners that are recognized by hiring agencies. On the other hand the credentialling of health promoters would seemingly limit the broad multidisciplinary base that is at the heart of health promotion. The basis on which one would become credentialled would be very difficult to define. This topic remains open for discussion. It was a pleasure being part of the Galway Consensus discussions. Despite the different origins