Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Newton, J; Dooris, M; Wills, JD (2016)
Publisher: SAGE
Languages: English
Types: Article

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: education
The health-promoting settings approach is well established in health promotion, with organisational settings being understood as complex systems able to support human wellbeing and flourishing. Despite the reach and evident importance of higher education as a sector, ‘healthy universities’ has not received high-level international leadership comparable to many other settings programmes. This study explores how the concept of a healthy university is operationalised in two case study universities. Data collection methods included documentary analysis, observation field notes and semi-structured interviews with staff and students. Staff and students understood the characteristics of a healthy university to pertain to management processes relating to communication and to a respectful organisational ethos. Enhancers of health and wellbeing were feeling valued, being listened to, having skilled and supportive line managers and having a positive physical environment.\ud Inhibitors of health and wellbeing were having a sense of powerlessness and a lack of care and concern. The concept of the healthy university has been slow to be adopted in contrast to initiatives such as healthy schools. In addition to challenges relating to lack of theorisation, paucity of evidence and difficulties in capturing the added value of whole-system working, this study suggests that this may be due to both their complex organisational structure and the diverse goals of higher education, which do not automatically privilege health and wellbeing. It also points to the need for a wholeuniversity approach that pays attention to the complex interactions and interconnections between component parts and highlights how the organisation can function effectively as a social system.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. World Health Organization (WHO). Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1986.
    • 2. World Health Organization (WHO). Jakarta Declaration on Health Promotion into the 21st Century. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1997.
    • 3. Whitelaw S, Baxendale A, Bryce C, Machardy L, Young I, Witney E. Settings based health promotion: A review. Health Promot. Int. 2001; 16(4): 339-353.
    • 4. Dooris M, Wills J, Newton J. Theorising healthy settings: A critical discussion with reference to healthy universities. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 2014; 42(Suppl 15): 7-16.
    • 5. Dooris M. Healthy settings: Challenges to generating evidence of effectiveness. Health Promot. Int. 2005; 21(1): 55-65.
    • 6. Dooris M, Doherty S. Healthy universities - time for action: A qualitative research study exploring the potential of a national programme. Health Promot. Int. 2010; 25(1): 94-106.
    • 7. Dooris M, Doherty S. Healthy universities: Current activity and future directions - findings and reflections from a national-level qualitative research study. Global Health Promotion. 2010; 17(3): 6-16.
    • 8. Brennan J, King R, Lebeau Y. The Role of Universities in the Transformation of Societies. Synthesis Report. London: Association of Commonwealth Universities/ Open University; 2004.
    • 9. Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). Higher Education Statistics for the UK 2012/13. London: HESA; 2014.
    • 10. Orme J, Dooris M. Integrating health and sustainability: The higher education sector as a timely catalyst. Health Education Research. 2010; 25(3): 425-437.
    • 11. Tsouros A, Dowding G, Thompson J, Dooris M (eds), Health promoting universities: Concept, experience and framework for action. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 1998. www.euro. who.int/document/e60163.pdf (accessed 5 January, 2015).
    • 12. Dooris M, Poland B, Kolbe L, de Leeuw E, McCall D, Wharf-Higgins J. Healthy settings: Building evidence for the effectiveness of whole system health promotion - challenges and future directions. In: McQueen D, Jones C (eds), Global Perspectives on Health Promotion Effectiveness. New York: Springer Science and Business Media; 2007.
    • 13. Simons H. Case Study Research in Practice. London, Sage; 2009.
    • 14. Yin R. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2009.
    • 15. Stake R. The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995.
    • 16. Simons H. Case Study Research in Practice. London: Sage; 2009.
    • 17. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006; 3(2): 77-101.
    • 18. Bauer G, Jenny G. From fidelity to figuration: Current and emerging approaches to organisational health intervention research. In: Bauer G, Jenny G (eds), Salutogenic Organisations and Change: The Concepts Behind Organisational Health Intervention Research. Dordrecht: Springer; 2013.
    • 19. Grawitch M, Gottschalk M, Munz D. The path to a healthy workplace: A critical review linking healthy workplaces, employee wellbeing, and organisational improvements. Consulting Psychology Journal. 2006; 58(3): 129-147.
    • 20. Bauer G, Jenny G. Moving towards positive organisational health. In Houdmondt J, Leka S, Sinclair R, editors. Contemporary occupational health psychology: global perspectives on research and practice (Vol. 2). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012.
    • 21. Shutler-Jones K. Improving performance through wellbeing and engagement - essential tools for a changing HE landscape. p. 4 http://www.ucea.ac.uk/ en/empres/epl/engage-well/wellbeing-proj-resources/ index.cfm (date accessed: 27 April 2015).
    • 22. David M with Parry G, Vignoles A, Hayward G, Williams J, et al. Widening participation in higher education. London: Institute of Education; 2008. www.tlrp.org/pub/documents/HEcomm.pdf (date accessed: 06 February 2015).
    • 23. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Student charter group: final report. London: Crown Copyright; 2011. http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/ biscore/higher-education/docs/s/11-736-studentcharter-group.pdf (date accessed: 08 January 2015).
    • 24. Dooris M, Doherty S, Cawood J, Powell S. The healthy universities approach: adding value to the higher education sector. In Scriven A, Hodgins M. Health promotion settings: principles and practice. London: Sage; 2012.
    • 25. Checkland P. Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: Wiley; 1999, pp.119-120.
    • 26. Naaldenberg J, Vaandrager L, Koelen M, Wagemakers AM, Saan H, de Hoog K. Elaborating on systems thinking in health promotion practice. Global Health Promotion 2009; 16(1): 39-47.
    • 27. Best A, Moor G, Holmes B, Clark P, Bruce T, Leischow S, et al. Health promotion dissemination and systems thinking: towards an integrative model.American Journal of Health Behaviour 2003; 27(Suppl 3): S206-S216.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article