Implementing the Health Promoting University approach in culturally different contexts: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Universities represent a valuable opportunity to promote health and well-being. Based on the setting approach, the Health Promoting Universities concept has been developed in different countries and contexts. However, the implementation process remains poorly documented. This systematic review aims to describe how universities have implemented the Health Promoting University concept in different cultural contexts. METHODS: Pubmed, Medline, Lilacs and Scielo were searched for articles on Health Promoting Universities, published between 1995 and 2015. Studies detailing the implementation of a Health Promoting University approach were included. Selected articles were content analysed paying attention to: (a) the definition of a Health Promoting University; (b) priority areas of action; (c) items of work; (d) coordination of the project; (e) evaluation; and (f) adaptation to the cultural context. RESULTS: Twelve studies were identified for in-depth analysis. Of those, three were theoretical papers, and nine were intervention studies. The programmes described in the selected studies are mostly based on the guidelines of the Edmonton Charter. They incorporated the main areas of action and items of works proposed by the Health Promoting University framework. The implementation of healthy policies and incorporation of health promotion in the curriculum are remaining challenges. Strategies to facilitate adaptation to context include: stakeholder participation in planning and implementation, adaptation of educational material and analysis of needs. CONCLUSIONS: The review suggests that most of the universities work towards similar goals, relying on the Health Promoting University framework, yet that the way in which initiatives are implemented depends on the context.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".