Evolution of ‘whole institution’ approaches to improving health in tertiary education settings: a critical scoping review
Open accessAbstract
In recent decades, 'whole school' approaches to improving health have gained traction, based on settings-based health promotion understandings which view a setting, its actors and processes as an integrated 'whole' system with multiple intervention opportunities. Much less is known about 'whole institution' approaches to improving health in tertiary education settings. We conducted a scoping review to describe both empirical and non-empirical (e.g. websites) publications relating to 'whole settings', 'complex systems' and 'participatory'/'action' approaches to improving the health of students and staff within tertiary education settings. English-language publications were identified by searching five academic and four grey literature databases and via the reference lists of studies read for eligibility. We identified 101 publications with marked UK overrepresentation. Since the 1970s, publications have increased, spanning a gradual shift in focus from 'aspirational' to 'conceptual' to 'evaluative'. Terminology is geographically siloed (e.g., 'healthy university' (UK), 'healthy campus' (USA)). Publications tend to focus on 'health' generally rather than specific health dimensions (e.g. diet). Policies, arguably crucial for cascading systemic change, were not the most frequently implemented intervention elements. We conclude that, despite the field's evolution, key questions (e.g., insights into who needs to do what, with whom, where and when; or efficacy) remain unanswered.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 91 · Cited by 23
- Authors
- Sweeting, H., Thomson, H., Wells, V., & Flowers, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Glasgow (GB)
- University of Strathclyde (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Sweeting, Helen
- Venue
- Research Papers in Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2021-08-25
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 661-689
- ISSN
- 0267-1522 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-1146
- PMC
- PMC7614732
- OpenAlex
- W3197109149
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 91
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 4 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 0.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Research Papers in Education (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Strathprints: The University of Strathclyde institutional repository (University of Strathclyde) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- UK Medical Research Council (MC_UU_12017/12)
- Scottish Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU12)
- University of Strathclyde
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › School Health and Nursing Education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Lifestyle Studies
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Public Health Policies and Education
- Keywords
- whole-institution approach, student health, employee health, settings-based health promotion, healthy campus, healthy university, complex systems, participatory approach, action research, health policy, health promotion interventions, university health promotion
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review