Health promoting schools and health promotion in schools: two systematic reviews.

Abstract

T he overall aim of the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and work in the NHS. Research is undertaken in those areas where the evidence will lead to the greatest benefits to patients, either through improved patient outcomes or the most efficient use of NHS resources.The Standing Group on Health Technology advises on national priorities for health technology assessment. Six advisory panels assist the Standing Group in identifying and prioritising projects. These priorities are then considered by the HTA Commissioning Board supported by the National Coordinating Centre for HTA (NCCHTA).This report is one of a series covering acute care, diagnostics and imaging, methodology, pharmaceuticals, population screening, and primary and community care. It was identified as a priority by the Primary and Community Care Panel and funded as project number 95/37/01.The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Standing Group, the Commissioning Board, the Panel members or the Department of Health. The editors wish to emphasise that funding and publication of this research by the NHS should not be taken as implicit support for the recommendations for policy contained herein. In particular, policy options in the area of screening will be considered by the National Screening Committee. This Committee, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, will take into account the views expressed here, further available evidence and other relevant considerations.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others.

Implementation of National Guidelines for Healthy School Meals: The Relationship Between Process and Outcome

“…This was seen, for instance, in the case schools focusing mainly on changing the physical environment with little focus on supportive norms for healthy eating at school, cooperation with health services and local partnerships. Previous research has found intervention programs promoted that healthy eating in young people were more likely to be effective if they adopted a wholeschool approach that involved all stakeholders and emphasized development of supportive norms and behaviors, combined with provision of healthy food in canteens (Lister-Sharp, Chapman, Stewart-Brown, & Sowden, 1999;World Health Organization Europe, 2006). Further, Deschesnes et al (2003) claim that in the development of a whole school approach to behavior it is crucial that a school focuses on the participation of the whole school community and not only a few innovators or individuals, as was the situation at the case schools.…”

School development in Austria and implementation factors for health promotion

“…Both have been shown to work as supporting factors for an HP programme (St Leger 1998;Lister-Sharp et al 1999;Gugglberger and Dür 2011). Specially appointed staff may even be more supportive than monetary resources, as has been shown in hospitals (Röthlin et al 2015).…”

The value of using schools as community assets for health

“…A number of reviews prior to 2000 looked at the WHO's model of Health Promoting Schools. 29,30 There was an attempt to implement a fragmented version of the WHO model in England called Healthy Schools (or NHSP). In spite of many enthusiastic local champions at the time, this was not implemented consistently or sustainably and a Lancet policy summary in 2011 concluded: 'it is not known if the NHSP results in improved health outcomes for children'.…”