Health Promoting Campuses: a time for global reflection and renewed action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a time of global instability causing climate disruption, widening inequality, mental health crises, and systemic fragility, higher education institutions (HEIs) are increasingly called on to act as agents of societal advancement (Cawood et al. 2010, Suárez-Reyes et al. 2018, Taylor et al. 2019). Health Promoting Campuses, as articulated in the ‘Okanagan Charter: An International Charter for Health Promoting Universities and Colleges’ (International Conference on Health Promoting Universities and Colleges 2015), provide an inspiring vision to strengthen communities and improve the well-being of people, places, and the planet. The Health Promoting Universities movement—also referred to as Health Promoting Campuses to reflect other types of HEIs—traces its origins to the ‘Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion’ (World Health Organisation 1986). This seminal document introduced settings-based health promotion, emphasizing that health is created in daily life contexts, including educational settings. Building on this, the ‘World Health Organisation’s’ Regional Office for Europe highlighted universities as key settings for public health (Tsouros et al. 1998). This was formalized in the ‘Edmonton Charter for Health Promoting Universities’ (World Health Organisation 2005), which established a shared vision for embedding health within HEIs policies and practices. ‘The Healthy Universities Final Report’ (World Health Organisation 2005) further advanced the movement, calling for stronger institutional commitment and international collaboration. The German ‘Healthy Campus’ model and regional networks in Latin America expanded the movement’s global reach, addressing local health priorities and equity issues (Suárez-Reyes et al. 2018). A pivotal moment came with the ‘Okanagan Charter’ (2015), launched at the‘2015 International Conference on Health Promoting Universities and Colleges/VII International Congress’, in British Columbia. This Charter provided a unifying framework for embedding human and ecological health across campus culture and settings, as well as calling on higher education to promote global health and sustainability action in broader society (International Conference on Health Promoting Universities and Colleges 2015). This whole-of-organization approach reframes health not as the responsibility of an individual or single department or service, but as a shared commitment across all parts of the institution. It recognizes that academic success and well-being are deeply interconnected—and that healthy, inclusive campus environments are foundational to learning, innovation, and equity (Dooris et al. 2019). Since its creation in 2015, the ‘Okanagan Charter’ has been adopted by hundreds of institutions across six continents, and the momentum continues to grow. From Canada to Chile, Australia to Ireland, and South Africa to Singapore, universities are embedding health into their missions, policies, and everyday practices (Dolf and Dooris 2025). The Charter calls on institutions to ‘embed health into all aspects of campus culture, across the administration, operations and academic mandates’ and to ‘lead health promotion action and collaboration locally and globally’ (International Conference on Health Promoting Universities and Colleges 2015). By adopting the Charter, institutions signal their commitment to systemic improvements across campuses. Many have gone on to establish cross-campus working groups, develop health promoting policies, integrate well-being into curricula, and conduct research that advances both institutional and societal well-being (Ginter et al. 2024, Waterworth and Thorpe 2017), for example, mental well-being among young adults (Usher and Curran 2019). Informing future work, the University of Limerick, Ireland, host the next ‘International Health Promoting Campuses Conference’ (IHPC) in June 2025. Here, the ‘Okanagan Charter’ is being renewed—providing an opportunity to examine its impact, share innovations, and advance the global agenda for well-being and sustainability in higher education. Higher education still has a long journey ahead to become Health Promoting Campuses. Many countries and institutions struggle to gain traction implementing system-wide health promotion as opposed to isolated initiatives (McDonald et al. 2022). The system largely treats health as an afterthought or the responsibility of healthcare professionals, as opposed to central to the mission of the institutional mandate of teaching, learning, research, and community engagement (Taylor et al. 2023). A critical theme emerging from the ‘IHPC 2025 Conference’ abstracts, and one that will anchor the movement in the decades to come, is the need for transdisciplinary collaboration. In addressing the interconnected ‘wicked problems’ of our time, health promotion in higher education must extend beyond traditional disciplinary silos to connect knowledge and action across health, sustainability, climate science, pedagogy, public policy, and institutional governance (Lang et al. 2012, Kickbusch and Nutbeam 2017). This requires a culture of courageous leadership, innovative learning environments, and evidence-informed action that places societies and shared governance at the heart of institutional missions. The 10-year anniversary of the ‘Okanagan Charter’ presents a critical juncture for reflection and renewal. As HEIs navigate evolving global challenges, we have both an opportunity and a responsibility to deepen our commitment to systemic, settings-based health promotion. The following strategic actions outline priorities for sustaining and advancing the impact of ‘Health Promoting Campuses’ over the coming decade. Charter review: Revisit and refine the ‘Okanagan Charter’ at the ‘2025 International Conference’ to ensure continued relevance and responsiveness to global contexts. Policy integration: Embed Charter vision, calls to action, and principles into national policies and funding models through collaboration across education and health sectors, as appropriate. Institutional leadership: Align university strategies and governance with health promotion, positioning well-being as foundational to academic success and institutional excellence. Recognize that university responsibility extends beyond our campuses working collaboratively with communities and governments to support a flourishing civic society. Capacity building: Strengthen professional development and invest in regional and global networks to support implementation and knowledge exchange. Inclusive co-creation: Engage students, faculty, staff, and communities in shaping health promoting policies and practices through participatory approaches. Evidence and evaluation: Advance research and develop robust evaluation frameworks to measure and share the long-term impacts of whole-of-institution approaches. Indigeneity and equity: Centre Indigenous knowledge systems and rights and address structural inequities as core to health promotion. Planetary health: Link up health promotion and sustainability agendas to recognize that human and ecological well-being are inextricable and must be addressed together. As we navigate the postpandemic recovery and ongoing global challenges, the importance of the ‘Okanagan Charter’ is evident. HEIs are not only places of learning but also living laboratories for societal progress. As educational institutions, universities need to consider their role as commercial and digital determinants of health. The structural, digital, and financial barriers that prevent some from accessing tertiary education must be a consideration in future policy and planning (Thomas et al. 2024, Holly et al. 2025). Institutions have the opportunity to shape healthier, more just, and more resilient futures, on campus and far beyond. The growing adoption of the principles and calls to action set out in the Okanagan Charter, along with the concurrent renewal process, signals not only sustained progress but also a timely opportunity to expand the Charter’s relevance—illuminating new possibilities for health promotion within the evolving contexts of higher education. It shows what is achievable when health is seen not as a siloed goal, but as integral to the success of the core mission of a university. We have built the frameworks, the networks, and the momentum. We now need continued investment and collaborative leadership to ensure that every postsecondary institution, no matter where it is in the world, is empowered to be a truly Health Promoting Campus. None declared. None declared. Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this article.
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 | 0.047 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.062 | 0.046 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.080 |
| Research integrity | 0.057 | 0.113 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.008 |
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".