The process of student engagement in school health promotion: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health Promoting Schools (HPS) is a whole school model that strengthens and maintains a healthy school environment. While a key component of HPS is the engagement of students, there is little known about the strategies for, facilitators of, and barriers to, student engagement. The purpose of this scoping review was to summarize and characterize the evidence on the process of student engagement in school health promotion, with a focus on whole school models like HPS. METHODS: This scoping review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and the Arksey and O'Malley scoping review framework. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews guided reporting. Eligibility included sources examining the process of student engagement in school health promotion for children and youth (ages 5-19) in any country, who attended a private or public school. Both published and unpublished sources were included. Databases searched were: CINAHL, ERIC, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Relevant organisational websites and sources identified by experts were also reviewed. Two independent reviewers screened the title, abstract, and full text of the sources. Descriptive analysis was conducted for quantitative data, and content analysis was employed for qualitative data. RESULTS: 1740 sources were screened, 133 citations were eligible for full text review and a total of 50 sources were included: 38 peer-reviewed publications, 7 grey literature sources, 2 peer-reviewed publications from reference-checking and 3 sources recommended by experts. The majority of articles reported on primary research (n = 34), employed qualitative methods (n = 28) and over half of all sources were published from European institutions/organizations (n = 26). Process strategies for student engagement predominantly related to participatory mechanisms including reflection and visioning, determining priorities and action-oriented learning. A wide range of intersecting facilitators and barriers were identified, with school structures largely acting as a barrier and adult approaches to engagement being a facilitator. CONCLUSION: This scoping review described the strategies, facilitators and barriers involving the process of student engagement in school health promotion. The results can inform the development and implementation of future student engagement strategies to strengthen school health promotion actions.
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 | 0.033 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".