Healthy Universities. The development and implementation of a holistic health promotion intervention programme especially adapted for staff working in the higher educational sector: the ARK study
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2020
Healthy Universities. The development and implementation of a holistic health promotion intervention programme especially adapted for staff working in the higher educational sector: the ARK study
Underpinned by the Healthy Universities settings concept, this paper presents a holistic intervention approach, called ARK, to improve the health and well-being of academic staff. ARK (a Norwegian acronym for work environment and climate study) has been conducted in 18 universities and university colleges in Norway. The survey has collected information on employees’ perceptions of the psychosocial work environment, well-being, and health from over 15,000 respondents. Further, it has provided valuable information and experiences on organizational development processes on how to successfully implement a health-promoting intervention programme. The aim of this paper is to present the ARK project and provide suggestions on how to conduct a health-promoting intervention programme in a university setting based on the experience and knowledge acquired from ARK. This understanding can inform and inspire the planning of future Health Promoting University initiatives to meet the distinctive needs of its employees.
World Health Organization. Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1986.
2.
DoorisMDohertyS.Healthy Universities – time for action: a qualitative research study exploring the potential for a national programme. Health Promotion Int. 2010; 25: 94–106.
3.
Suárez-ReyesMVan den BrouckeS.Implementing the Health Promoting University approach in culturally different contexts: a systematic review. Glob Health Promot. 2015; 23(Suppl 1): 46–56.
4.
healthyuniversities.ac.uk [Internet]. Lancashire: The University of Central Lancashire and Manchester Metropolitan University [cited 2017 Nov 29]. Available from: www.healthyuniversities.ac.uk.
5.
DoorisMDohertySOrmJ. The application of salutogenesis in universities. In: MittelmarkMBSagySErikssonMBauerGFPelikanJMLindstrømB, et al. (eds). The Handbook of Salutogenesis. Cham: Springer; 2017, pp.237–245.
6.
ChristensenMDyrstadJMInnstrandST. Academic work engagement, resources and productivity: empirical evidence with policy implications. Studies in Higher Education2018; 1–14. DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2018.1517304.
ChuCBreuckerGHarrisNStitzelAGanXXueqiG.Health promoting workplaces: international settings development. Health Promot Int. 2000; 15: 155–167.
9.
BakkerABDemeroutiE.The job demands-resources model: state of the art. J Manage Psychol. 2007; 22: 309–328.
10.
BakkerABDemeroutiE.Job demands-resources theory. In: ChenPYCooperCL (eds). Work and Wellbeing: Wellbeing: A Complete Reference Guide. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2014, pp.37–64.
11.
BakkerABDemeroutiE.Job demands–resources theory: taking stock and looking forward. J Occup Health Psychol. 2017; 22: 273–285.
12.
World Health Organization. The Bangkok Charter for health promotion in a globalized world. Health Promot J Austr. 2005; 16: 168–171.
13.
UndebakkeKGInnstrandSTAnthunKSChristensenM. ARK. The ARK intervention Programme. Who-What-How. Series of reports from the center for health promotion research Hist/NTNU. Report 2015/01; 2014.
14.
InnstrandSTLangballeEMFalkumE.A longitudinal study of the relationship between work engagement and symptoms of anxiety and depression. Stress Health. 2012; 28: 1–10.
15.
FredricksonBLLosadaM.Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. Am Psychol. 2005; 60: 678–686.
16.
NielsenKRandallRHoltenA-LGonzálezER.Conducting organizational-level occupational health interventions: what works?Work Stress. 2010; 24(3): 234–259. DOI: 10.1080/02678373.2010.515393.
17.
NielsenKRandallR.The importance of employee participation and perception of changes in procedures in a teamworking intervention. Work Stress. 2012; 26: 91–111. DOI: 10.1080/02678373.2012.682721.
18.
InnstrandSTChristensenMUndebakkeKGSvarvaK.The presentation and preliminary validation of KIWEST using a large sample of Norwegian university staff. Scandinavian J Public Health. 2015; 4: 855–866.
19.
AbildgaardJSSaksvikPØNielsenK.How to measure the intervention process? An assessment of qualitative and quantitative approaches to data collection in the process evaluation of organizational interventions. Front Psychol. 2016; 7: 1–10. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01380.
20.
NielsenKRandallR.Opening the black box: a framework for evaluating organizational level occupational health interventions. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2013; 22: 601–617.
21.
NielsenK.Organizational occupational health interventions: what works for whom in which circumstances?Occup Med. 2017; 67: 410–412. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqx058.
22.
GlasgowREVogtTMBolesSM.Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Pub Health. 1999; 89:1322–1327.
23.
RandallRNielsenKTvedtSD.The development of five scales to measure employees’ appraisals of organizational-level stress management interventions. Work Stress. 2009; 23: 1–23.
24.
InnstrandSTChristensenMGrødalK. Inclusiveness - a prerequisite for a sustainable work life in the future?. Institute of Work Psychology International Conference 2018. Work Psychology: Shaping the future; 2018-06-19 - 2018-06-21.
25.
StantonAChernenkoVDhaliwalRGilbertMGoldnerEMHarrisonC, et al. Building healthy campus communities: the adaptation of a workplace tool to understand better student well-being within higher education settings. Educ Health. 2013; 31: 84–90.
