For years Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has served as a key indicator of human progress and “successful” societies. Unfortunately, GDP has failed to robustly capture the human experience or predict resilience through crises; and obscures the presence of inequity -- a key determinant of suffering. It is clear the global community needs a new organizing principle: one that envisions and measures progress by focusing on the conditions that support health, resilience, and overall wellbeing. This paper examines key health promotion concepts and approaches, juxtaposed with philosophical underpinnings of the concept of wellbeing, alternative measurement strategies, and examples of wellbeing policy initiatives. In doing so, the paper highlights the relevance of wellbeing policy frameworks to health promotion, the utility of health promotion strategies for implementing wellbeing policy frameworks, and controversies and pitfalls that require consideration. The paper concludes by outlining how health promotion is uniquely poised to contribute to wellbeing policy frameworks that promote the sources of human and planetary thriving through sustainable development, and that promoting a wellbeing agenda can strengthen efforts to promote health by addressing social determinants and ensuring universal access to resources that support coping with emerging challenges and strengthen resilience.

No abstract

society, whether defi ned by gender, ethnicity, age, religion or economic status 5 . Reducing these inequities requires understanding of the relationship between gender equity and socioeconomic inequality and how these affect womenʼs health at the macro and micro levels 6 . Achieving gender equity in health means eliminating unnecessary, avoidable and unjust barriers stemming from the social construction of gender, and providing women and men with the same opportunities necessary to have and sustain good health. It does not mean achieving the same rate of morbidity and mortality for men and women but a fair distribution of responsibilities, power and resources for women and men including placing a value on work done at home. The WHO Centre for Health Development (WHO Kobe Centre -WKC) held a series of international meetings to discuss and address issues related to gender and womenʼs health. The Awaji Statement called for "governments to shift from a focus on health care policy to healthy public policy (…) from narrow indicators of morbidity and effi ciency to broader indicators of equity and well-being" (WKC 2000). The subsequent Canberra Communiqué (WKC 2001) suggested strengthening health information through systematic sexdisaggregated data and analysis. In 2002, WKC issued the Kobe Plan of Action for Women and Health with four priority research areas (WKC 2002). One of the priorities suggested conducting "comparative analysis of gender equity/equality indicators used by international agencies" (WKC 2002). The work required examining indicators used by international agencies, their rationale, methods of collection and use as well as technical quality in relation For too long, womenʼs health as a public health concern, has been perceived as synonymous with womenʼs reproductive health. Monitoring of womenʼs health was limited to a few indicators focused on childbearing and delivery, an approach that failed to consider the health of women beyond reproductive age. Research on gender-specifi c medicine made the case that little was yet known about womenʼs health and that more information should be collected. Gender health difference is not sex difference. Men and women engage in different daily activities and risk-taking behaviours related to their roles. Evidence suggests that gender factors may infl uence womenʼs risk of disease as shown by higher rates of smoking particularly among young females 1 . Women are also the fastest-growing risk group for HIV/AIDS, yet this is mostly an invisible epidemic among women. 2 Similarly, the expectations that come with being male have a signifi cant effect on menʼs health. Men tend to be more disposed to risk-taking behaviours -violence, unsafe sex, heavy drinking -that can lead to illness and/or premature death. While it is generally true that in most societies women live longer than men, it is also the case that women tend to be more affected by long-term and chronic illness, which signifi cantly affects life quality 3 . Evidence shows that womenʼs access to resources and e...

Objectives: This article seeks to describe the process of reaching consensus for a gender-sensitive set of leading health indicators between and within multi-level stakeholders from various cultural, social and economic conditions. In 2000 the WHO Centre for Health Development (WKC) embarked on a multilevel participatory process aiming at the formulation of a well-accepted set of gender-sensitive leading health indicators -and considerable interest in their use. Different stakeholders have different needs and demands for information. Failure to reach consensus between the relevant actors led to the development and use of indicators by different groups, creating situation of confusion for end users of data. Methods: The consensus process took almost two years starting from 2003 and WKC played a facilitating role in this process.The consultation process was done through different mechanisms ranging from international meetings, online voting and expert group meeting. Results:The core set of indicators was brought down to 34 leading health indicators and was pilot tested in two sites.Preliminary results of the pilot testing showed that the set was considered as valuable tool for policy and decision-making at various levels. Conclusion:The consensus over the gender-sensitive core set of leading health indicators was a relatively long and extensive process and required some kind of creativity to identify appropriate platforms for consultation. But the key point is that perspectives of multiple stakeholders were included as much as possible.

Background: Overweight and obesity, physical inactivity, and sedentary behavior are important risk factors for chronic diseases; however, for the youth in countries of the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR), comparable prevalence data are lacking. Methods: We used data from nationally representative samples of 34,410 13-15 year old schoolchildren who participated in the Global School-based Student Health Survey (Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Oman, Pakistan, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen). Data on height, weight, physical activity levels, and sedentary behavior were collected from 2005-2009 in these eleven EMR countries and sex- and country-specific prevalence rates were calculated. Results: The prevalence of overweight and obese youth ranged from 6.5% in Pakistan (boys: 5.1%, girls: 8.7%) to 37.6% in the United Arab Emirates (boys: 39.2%, girls: 36.1%), whereas underweight was highest in Yemen (20.8%; boys: 25.4%, girls: 13.0%) and lowest in Egypt (4.0%; boys: 4.7%, girls: 3.2%). Six of the eleven countries had an overweight and obese rate higher than 20%. The combined risk factors of overweight, insufficient amount of physical activity (< 5 days of at least 60 minutes per week), and sedentary behavior (≥ 3 hours of sitting activities per day) ranged from 0.5% in Pakistan to 12.3% in the United Arab Emirates. Conclusion: These data suggest that prevalence of overweight schoolchildren is high in EMR countries. In addition, physical activity levels were below recommendation guidelines in most of the surveyed countries. Efforts to prevent these unfortunate trends should be taken on regional and national levels.