Interventions to Support System-level Implementation of Health Promoting Schools: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health promoting schools (HPS) is recognized globally as a multifaceted approach that can support health behaviours. There is increasing clarity around factors that influence HPS at a school level but limited synthesized knowledge on the broader system-level elements that may impact local implementation barriers and support uptake of a HPS approach. This study comprised a scoping review to identify, summarise and disseminate the range of research to support the uptake of a HPS approach across school systems. Two reviewers screened and extracted data according to inclusion/exclusion criteria. Relevant studies were identified using a multi-phased approach including searching electronic bibliographic databases of peer reviewed literature, hand-searching reference lists and article recommendations from experts. In total, 41 articles met the inclusion criteria for the review, representing studies across nine international school systems. Overall, studies described policies that provided high-level direction and resources within school jurisdictions to support implementation of a HPS approach. Various multifaceted organizational and professional interventions were identified, including strategies to enable and restructure school environments through education, training, modelling and incentives. A systematic realist review of the literature may be warranted to identify the types of intervention that work best for whom, in what circumstance to create healthier schools and students.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".