This study examines the localisation in China and Germany of the Global Standards for Health-Promoting Schools (HPS) developed jointly by WHO and UNESCO, focusing on how global frameworks are taken up and localised within different cultural and policy contexts.
Methods:
A qualitative comparative design combined policy review with systematic content analysis. Two national school-facing documents were analysed using the WHO/UNESCO’ HPS domains as a coding framework. We compared domain emphases and mapped a condensed set of indicators to specific national statements, using localisation labels (adopt, intensify, externalise, disperse, omit). Social–ecological systems theory provided a multilevel lens for interpreting how institutional structures and cultural expectations shaped localisation.
Results:
Divergence from the HPS standards was strongest in school health services and in the school social–emotional environment (SEE). In China, health services were embedded in schools through the use of dedicated staff, facilities and routine provision, reflecting a “big school–big health” model that sought to integrate educational and health responsibilities. In Germany, services were largely community- or needs-based and externally coordinated, reflecting a “small school–small health” model with clearer system differentiation. With respect to the school SEE, Germany addressed the requirements via school culture and student-centred competencies, while China addressed SEE mainly through auditable requirements spread across domains.
Conclusion:
Different systemic and cultural contexts generate distinct localisation pathways and trade-offs. The findings of this study highlight a “missing middle” between global standards and practical application, and suggest that progressive implementation is more workable when countries also put in place concrete supports—either in-school professional support and safeguards, or clear referral routes and cross-sector coordination.
BarnekowVBuijsGCliftS, et al. (2006) Health-Promoting Schools: A Resource for Developing Indicators. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.
2.
BronfenbrennerU (1979) The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3.
BronfenbrennerU (1994) Ecological models of human development. International Encyclopedia of Education3(2): 37–43.
4.
BuijsG (2009) Better schools through health: Networking for health promoting schools in Europe. European Journal of Education44(4): 507–520.
5.
Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1992) Gesetz zu dem Übereinkommen über die Rechte des Kindes. Bonn: Bundesanzeiger.
6.
Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung (BZgA) (2008) Referenzrahmen schulischer Gesundheitsförderung: Gesundheitsqualität im Kontext der Schulqualität—Handreichung mit Indikatorenlisten und Toolbox. Köln: BZgA.
7.
CorbinJHOyeneUEManoncourtE, et al. (2021) A health promotion approach to emergency management: Effective community engagement strategies from five cases. Health Promotion International36(Suppl 1): i24–i38.
8.
CremerW (2012) Kinderrechte in Deutschland: 20 Jahre UN-Kinderrechtskonvention. Berlin: Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte.
9.
DengJFitzpatrickK (2025) What is health education within HPE? A critical analysis of curriculum in Aotearoa New Zealand, China and Japan. Health Education Journal84(5): 461–473.
10.
DengS (2021) Comparing students’ engagement in classroom education between China and Germany. Frontiers in Psychology12: 754637.
11.
De WinterMBaerveldtCKooistraJ (1999) Enabling children: Participation as a new perspective on child-health promotion. Child: Care, Health and Development25(1): 15–23; discussion 23.
12.
EckermannL (2016) Health promotion principles as a catalyst for translating the SDGs into more transformative action. Health Promotion International31(2): 253–257.
13.
FranzkowiakP (2022) Prävention und Krankheitsprävention. In:
Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung (BZgA) (ed.) Leitbegriffe der Gesundheitsförderung und Prävention: Glossar zu Konzepten, Strategien und Methoden. Köln: BZgA, pp. 776–796.
14.
HigginsEBookerR (2022) The implementation of a whole school approach to mental health and well-being promotion in the Irish primary school context. Health Education Journal81(6): 649–666.
15.
JourdanDGrayNJBarryMM, et al. (2021) Supporting every school to become a foundation for healthy lives. The Lancet. Child & Adolescent Health5(4): 295–303.
16.
Kultusministerkonferenz (2012) Gesundheitsförderung und Prävention in der Schule: Empfehlungen der Kultusministerkonferenz. Berlin: KMK.
17.
LangfordRBonellCPJonesHE, et al. (2014) The WHO Health Promoting School framework for improving the health and well-being of students and their academic achievement. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews2014(4): CD008958.
18.
LiC (2017) The Guidelines and Appropriate Technologies for Health-promoting Schools [in Chinese]. Beijing: People’s Medical Publishing House.
19.
LiJ (2012) Pre-vocational Education in Germany and China: A Comparison of Curricula and Its Implications. Dordrecht: Springer.
20.
LiuC (2009) The boundaries and limitations of school education responsibilities [in Chinese]. Educational Development Research21: 40–44.
21.
LokshynaOIDzhuryloAPGlushkoOZ, et al. (2021) Secondary education reform priorities under globalisation: The case of Ukraine in comparison with China, Germany and Poland. SHS Web of Conferences104: 02006.
22.
LvSH (2018) Current situation and countermeasures of health-promoting schools from the perspective of Healthy China [in Chinese]. Chinese Journal of School Health39(6): 873–876.
23.
MargarethaMAzzopardiPSFisherJ, et al. (2023) School-based mental health promotion: A global policy review. Frontiers in Psychiatry14: 1126767.
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (2022) On the Implementation of the National Healthy Schools Initiative [in Chinese]. Beijing, China: General Office of the Ministry of Education. Available at: http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A17/s7059/202204/t20220424_621280.html (accessed 14 February 2026).
26.
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (2023) The Announcement of the First Batch of National Healthy School Pilot Units [in Chinese]. Beijing, China: General Office of the Ministry of Education. Available at: http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A17/moe_943/moe_946/202306/t20230621_1065227.html (accessed 14 February 2026).
National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China (2024) Chinese Citizens’ Health Literacy—Interpretation of Basic Knowledge and Skills (2024 edition) [in Chinese]. Beijing, China: National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China. Available at: https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/202405/content_6954649.htm (accessed 14 February 2026).
30.
National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China (1992) Law on the Protection of Minors [in Chinese]. Beijing, China: National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China.
31.
O’ByrneDJonesJMacdonaldH, et al. (1996) WHO’s global school health initiative. World Health49(4): 5–6.
32.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2025) Education at a Glance 2025: Germany (Country Note). Paris: OECD Publishing.
33.
OrkodashviliM (2013) Quality education through Child-Friendly Schools: Resource allocation for the protection of children’s rights. Revista Românească pentru Educaţie Multidimensională1: 101–109.
34.
PaulusP (2022) Schulische Gesundheitsförderung von Ottawa bis heute: Chancen und Herausforderungen. Bundesgesundheitsblatt—Gesundheitsforschung—Gesundheitsschutz65(7): 741–748.
35.
PaulusPWitteriedeH (2008) Schule–Gesundheit–Bildung: Bilanz und Perspektiven. Dortmund: Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin.
36.
PommierJJourdanDBergerD, et al. (2010) School health promotion: Organisation of services and roles of health professionals in seven European countries. European Journal of Public Health20(2): 182–188.
37.
ReißFNappAKErhartM, et al. (2023) Perspektive Prävention: Psychische Gesundheit von Schülerinnen und Schülern in Deutschland. Bundesgesundheitsblatt—Gesundheitsforschung—Gesundheitsschutz66(4): 391–401.
38.
Rodrigo- SanjoaquínJMurillo-PardoBCorral- AbósA, et al. (2023) Barriers to and ways of facilitating the implementation of Aragon’s Health-Promoting School network. Health Education Journal82(3): 251–262.
39.
UNESCO (2022) UNESCO Strategy on Education for Health and Well-being. Paris: UNESCO.
United Nations (2015) Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. New York: United Nations.
44.
VelascoVCoppolaLVenerusoM, et al. (2022) COVID-19 and the Health Promoting School in Italy: Perspectives of educational leaders. Health Education Journal81(1): 69–84.
45.
World Health Organization (WHO) (1986) Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion, 1986. Geneva: WHO.
46.
World Health Organization (WHO) (1995) Global School Health Initiative: Helping Schools to Become Health-Promoting Schools. Geneva: WHO.
47.
World Health Organization (WHO) (1996) Regional Guidelines: Development of Health-Promoting Schools–A Framework for Action. Manila: WHO.
World Health Organization and UNESCO (2021a) Making Every School a Health-Promoting School: Country Case Studies. Geneva: World Health Organization and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240025431 (accessed 14 February 2026).
51.
World Health Organization and UNESCO (2021b) Making Every School a Health-promoting School: Global Standards and Indicators for Health-promoting Schools and Systems. Geneva: World Health Organization and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240025059 (accessed 14 February 2026).
52.
World Health Organization and UNESCO (2021c) Making Every School a Health-Promoting School: Implementation Guidance. Geneva: World Health Organization and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240025073 (accessed 14 February 2026).
53.
XieLHWangKX (2022) Comparative study and implications of the China–Germany “secondary–bachelor continuous” vocational education model [in Chinese]. Research in Vocational Education Development3: 73–84.
54.
XingYNingYH (2024) Comparative study on the motives, operation, and guarantee mechanism of dual main bodies (school-enterprise) in vocational education in China and Germany [in Chinese]. Research in Vocational Education Development: 57–65.
55.
ZhangYHuangLZhouX, et al. (2019) Characteristics and workload of pediatricians in China. Pediatrics144(1). e20183532.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
