The paper presents the structure and trends of morbidity in the examined first-year students of the Belgorod State Engineering Academy of Building Materials in the course of the past 6 years. High morbidity rates were found in them. Every year healthy students decrease in number; students who have 2-5 diseases or more increase. The authors present the results of their own results of survey at the Department of Physical Education and Sports in two tables and a figure. Due to this health status of first-year students, they developed a health promotion programme for these students as "Formation of Health-Promoting Culture for First-Year Students" and the "Authors' Student Health Programme".
In the present paper, we address the problem of finding conditions under which aggregation of individual health status measurements (e.g. QALYs) is meaningful in the sense that there is a universal unit of measurement for health. The problem is studied in a model where different aspects of health take the form of Lancasterian characteristics to be produced by the individuals using commodities obtained in the market. For a meaningful unit of measurement to exist, marginal rates of substitution between different aspects of health should not differ among individuals, and for this to happen in an equilibrium of the economy considered, certain assumptions of separability (of technology and/or preferences) must be satisfied. This means that universal measures of health will be meaningful only if there are not too many spillovers in achieving different aspects of health.
We begin with a discussion of some vitally important conceptual and methodological issues. These issues concern our understanding of community, of health, of population health and its determinants, of the concept of 'measurement' and the values that underlie it, and our reasons for wishing to measure these constructs. We then present a framework for indicator categories, propose some criteria for indicator selection and suggest an initial set of core indicators. This indicator set reflects not simply health status--no matter how broadly defined--but also the environmental, social and economic determinants of health and the "healthfulness" of the community itself. Our most important conclusion is that if the information that is contained in the data of the indicator set is to be transformed into knowledge that can empower and emancipate the community, it has to be developed in consultation with the local community and local users of the information.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) came into force in June 1988. This legislation provides the federal government with broad powers to deal with health and environmental problems posed by chemicals and the products of biotechnology throughout their life cycle. Responsibility for administering CEPA is shared between the Department of the Environment and the Department of National Health and Welfare. Part II of the Act, the "toxic substances" provisions, enables the federal government to impose controls on substances new to Canadian commerce and to address the health and environmental risks posed by existing substances. Part II of CEPA also delineates the manner in which existing substances are to be selected for assessment (priority substances) and controlled. The first Priority Substances List was published in February 1989. The 44 entries on this list include discrete chemicals, classes of chemicals, and complex mixtures of chemicals; the Department of the Environment and the Department of National Health and Welfare must ascertain whether these substances pose a risk (are "toxic" as defined in CEPA) to the environment or to human health by February 1994. This paper outlines the administrative arrangements for conducting risk assessments and the requirements for ascertaining whether a substance is "toxic" with respect to human health under CEPA. The rationale for deeming dioxins and furans, the first two priority substances to be assessed, as "toxic" with respect to human health is also described.