Health promoting universities: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ISSUE ADDRESSED: The university setting represents a singular context to promote health and well-being. Although health-promoting university (HPU) initiatives exist worldwide, information on theoretical principles is sparse. The purpose of this integrative review is to describe how the HPU approach has been theorised. METHODS: A scoping review was carried out in PubMed, Medline, ERIC, Scielo, WoS, Scopus and CINAHL following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) statement. The articles included in the final step were content analysed according to: (a) reference; (b) country; (c) label; (d) objectives of work; (e) HPU definition and (f) type of study. For the empirical articles, some additional items were reviewed. RESULTS: After the analysis and exclusion of studies for not meeting the inclusion criteria, 22 articles were integrated into the final sample. Of those, 12 were theoretical papers and 10 were empirical studies. The review found that most of the studies define the HPU approach according to the principles described in the Ottawa Charter and the socioecological perspective on health promotion. Most of the empirical selected studies are based on qualitative data. The implementation of healthy policies and evaluative strategies are remaining challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the HPU concept is underpinned by a wide array of theories and models. It also points to the need for a common university framework that integrates the basic principles into practice. The articulation between theoretical narrative and practical initiatives is a remaining threat that needs to be assessed in order to enable universities to become healthy spaces. SO WHAT?: HPU generates enabling conditions that support communities to improve and maintain their health status and well-being. In this sense, more evidence of effectiveness will be needed in future research.
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 | 0.028 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.037 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".