Search

The growing burden of non-communicable and newly emerging communicable diseases, multi-morbidity, increasing health inequalities, the health effects of climate change and natural disasters and the revolution in communication technology require a shift of focus towards more preventive, people-centred and community-based health services. This has implications for the health workforce, which needs to develop new capacities and skills, many of which are at the core of health promotion. Health promotion is thus being mainstreamed into modern public health. For health promotion, this offers both opportunities and challenges. A stronger focus on the enablers of health enhances the strategic importance of health promotion's whole-of-society approach to health, showcases the achievements of health promotion with regard to core professional competencies, and helps build public health capacity with health promotion accents. On the other hand, mainstreaming health promotion can weaken its organizational capacity and visibility, and bears the risk of it being absorbed into a traditional public health discourse dominated by medical professions. To address these challenges and grasp the opportunities, it is essential for the health promotion workforce to position itself within the diversifying primary care and public health field. Taking the transdisciplinary status of health promotion and existing capacity development systems in primary and secondary prevention and health promotion as reference points, this paper considers the possibilities to integrate and implement health promotion capacities within and across disciplinary boundaries, arguing that the contribution of health promotion to public health development lies in the complementary nature of specialist and mainstreamed health promotion.

Introduction: Universities represent a valuable opportunity to promote health and well-being. Based on the setting approach, the Health Promoting Universities concept has been developed in different countries and contexts. However, the implementation process remains poorly documented. This systematic review aims to describe how universities have implemented the Health Promoting University concept in different cultural contexts., Methods: Pubmed, Medline, Lilacs and Scielo were searched for articles on Health Promoting Universities, published between 1995 and 2015. Studies detailing the implementation of a Health Promoting University approach were included. Selected articles were content analysed paying attention to: (a) the definition of a Health Promoting University; (b) priority areas of action; (c) items of work; (d) coordination of the project; (e) evaluation; and (f) adaptation to the cultural context., Results: Twelve studies were identified for in-depth analysis. Of those, three were theoretical papers, and nine were intervention studies. The programmes described in the selected studies are mostly based on the guidelines of the Edmonton Charter. They incorporated the main areas of action and items of works proposed by the Health Promoting University framework. The implementation of healthy policies and incorporation of health promotion in the curriculum are remaining challenges. Strategies to facilitate adaptation to context include: stakeholder participation in planning and implementation, adaptation of educational material and analysis of needs., Conclusions: The review suggests that most of the universities work towards similar goals, relying on the Health Promoting University framework, yet that the way in which initiatives are implemented depends on the context., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

Background: This paper describes a project to strengthen the capacity for health promotion in two Provinces in South Africa. The project draws on the key health promotion capacity dimensions of partnership and networking, infrastructure, problem-solving capacity, and knowledge transfer. The project was carried out in a partnership between the Provinces, the Ministry of Health of South Africa, the government of Flanders, Belgium, and the World Health Organization (WHO)., Objectives: The project aimed to: (i) integrate health promotion into national, Provincial and district level health policy plans (ii) strengthen the health promotion capacity in the two Provinces; and (iii) support the development of tools to monitor and evaluate health promotion interventions., Method: Starting from a situation analysis and identification of priority health issues and existing actions in each Province, capacity-building workshops were organized for senior participants from various sectors. Community-based health promotion interventions were then planned and implemented in both Provinces., Outcomes: A systematic evaluation of the project involving an internal audit of project activities and results based on document analysis, site visits, focus groups and interviews with key persons demonstrated that stakeholders in both Provinces saw an increase of capacity in terms of networking, knowledge transfer, problem solving, and to a lesser extent infrastructure. Health promotion had been well integrated in the Provincial health plans, and roll-out processes with local stakeholders had started after the conclusion of the project. The development of tools for monitoring and evaluation of health promotion was less well achieved., Lessons Learnt: The project illustrates how capacities to deliver health promotion interventions in a developing country can be enhanced through international collaboration. The conceptual model of capacity building that served as a basis for the project provided a useful framework to plan, identify and assess the key components of health promotion capacity in an African context.