The UK Healthy Universities Self-Review Tool
Whole System Impact
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22945807 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Mark Dooris (0000-0002-5986-1660, University of Lancashire), Alan Farrier (0000-0003-4989-2209, University of Lancashire, corresponding author), Sharon Doherty (University of Lancashire), Maxine Holt (0000-0003-3012-2159, Manchester Metropolitan University), Robert Monk (Manchester Metropolitan University), Susan Powell (0000-0002-0021-5859, Manchester Metropolitan University) |
| Year | 2016 |
| Volume | 33 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | daw099 |
| Publication date | 2016-12-23 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Health Promotion International (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0957-4824 • E-ISSN: 1460-2245 |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1093/heapro/daw099 |
| PMID | 28011661 |
| OpenAlex | W2561811794 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 9 |
| References cited | 11 |
Over recent years, there has been growing interest in Healthy Universities, evidenced by an increased number of national networks and the participation of 375 participants from over 30 countries in the 2015 International Conference on Health Promoting Universities and Colleges, which also saw the launch of the Okanagan Charter. This paper reports on research exploring the use and impact of the UK Healthy Universities Network's self review tool, specifically examining whether this has supported universities to understand and embed a whole system approach. The research study comprised two stages, the first using an online questionnaire and the second using focus groups. The findings revealed a wide range of perspectives under five overarching themes: motivations; process; outcomes/benefits; challenges/suggested improvements; and future use. In summary, the self review tool was extremely valuable and, when engaged with fully, offered significant benefits to universities seeking to improve the health and wellbeing of their communities. These benefits were felt by institutions at different stages in the journey and spanned outcome and process dimensions: not only did the tool offer an engaging and user-friendly means of undertaking internal benchmarking, generating an easy-to-understand report summarizing strengths and weaknesses; it also proved useful in building understanding of the whole system Healthy Universities approach and served as a catalyst to effective cross-university and cross-sectoral partnership working. Additionally, areas for potential enhancement were identified, offering opportunities to increase the tool's utility further whilst engaging actively in the development of a global movement for Healthy Universities.
Benchmarking · Business · Charter · General partnership · Medical education · Political science · Process (computing) · Public relations · Strengths and weaknesses · Community Health and Development · Computer Science · Health, psychology, and well-being · Marketing · Medicine · Psychology · School Health and Nursing Education
Exploring the health and wellbeing landscape at a third level institution
The Role of Personal Resources in Buffering College Student Technostress during the Pandemic
Factors Associated with Cardiovascular Disease Risk among Employees at a Portuguese Higher Education Institution
Evolution of ‘whole institution’ approaches to improving health in tertiary education settings
Cultural adaptation of a self-review tool for health promoting universities in Bulgaria
Health Promotion in Israeli Colleges of Higher Education—The Example of Oranim College of Education
Participation of university community members in Health Promoting University (HPU) initiatives
Sport, concussion and student subcultures
University students' everyday negotiations of (un)healthy practices
| Citations per year | 1.5 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2020 - 2025 (6) |
| Highly cited | No |