Healthy Universities: a guiding framework for universities to examine the distinctive health needs of its own student population.

The underlying principle of settings for health is that investments in health are made within social systems in which health is not necessarily the main remit. In order to understand the health needs of its own community, a growing movement of Healthy Universities is interested in applying the approach within the higher education sector. This study examined the student health behaviours of one university so that future initiatives can be tailored to its own student population.Quantitative data were gathered from 3,683 students studying at a UK urban university. A 60-question online student questionnaire focusing on seven key topic areas was used to gather data and simple descriptive statistics are used to present key findings.The study has identified a need for considering alternative ways of engaging students with appropriate health services throughout the academic year. A focus for university initiatives around healthy eating options, how to cook healthy food and the importance of keeping hydrated is highlighted as a common need. Risky behaviour involving alcohol, drug and substance use and sexual activity suggests a strong argument for not separating university sexual health and alcohol interventions.Underpinned by the Healthy Universities settings concept, this study examined the health and wellbeing behaviours of one university's own student population. It highlights behaviours within the university that are similar to national averages, and some that are not. This understanding can inform the planning of future health promoting university initiatives to meet the distinctive needs of its own students

The associations between sedentary behaviour and mental health among adolescents:A systematic review

Background: With technological developments and modernised sedentary lifestyles has come an increase in diseases associated with inactivity such as obesity and other non-communicable diseases. Emerging evidence suggests that time spent sedentary may also interact with mental health. This systematic review examined the associations between sedentary behaviour and mental health problems among adolescents. Methods: This systematic review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, and applied a quality assessment tool for quantitative studies to identity best available evidence. Following stringent search strategy of the databases; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, Health Source: Nursing and Academic Edition, MEDLINE, PsychARTICLES and PsycINFO, we identified 32 articles eligible for review. Results: All studies reported leisure screen time among adolescents, and two thirds of identified studies examined depressive symptomatology. Other mental health measures were; anxiety symptoms, self-esteem, suicide ideation, loneliness, stress, and psychological distress. Strong consistent evidence was found for the relationship between both depressive symptomatology and psychological distress, and time spent using screens for leisure. Moderate evidence supported the relationship between low self-esteem and screen use. Poorer mental health status was found among adolescents using screen time more than 2-3 h per day, and gender differences exist. Essential information was missing for quality of evidence including heterogeneity in mental health and screen time-based measures, and self-report data collection methods. Conclusions: The findings are of particular significance given the global public health concern of lifestyle-attributed diseases and the possibility for novel approaches to mental health. Future research should examine the psychological impact of reducing time spent using screens for leisure among adolescents, whilst accounting for possible confounding factors such as physical activity and dietary behaviours. It is critical that the reciprocal relationship between lifestyle behaviours and mental health is represented in both the psychiatric and public health forum

Theory and practice of social norms interventions: eight common pitfalls.

BACKGROUND: Recently, Global Health practitioners, scholars, and donors have expressed increased interest in "changing social norms" as a strategy to promote health and well-being in low and mid-income countries (LMIC). Despite this burgeoning interest, the ability of practitioners to use social norm theory to inform health interventions varies widely. MAIN BODY: Here, we identify eight pitfalls that practitioners must avoid as they plan to integrate a social norms perspective in their interventions, as well as eight learnings. These learnings are: 1) Social norms and attitudes are different; 2) Social norms and attitudes can coincide; 3) Protective norms can offer important resources for achieving effective social improvement in people's health-related practices; 4) Harmful practices are sustained by a matrix of factors that need to be understood in their interactions; 5) The prevalence of a norm is not necessarily a sign of its strength; 6) Social norms can exert both direct and indirect influence; 7) Publicising the prevalence of a harmful practice can make things worse; 8) People-led social norm change is both the right and the smart thing to do. CONCLUSIONS: As the understanding of how norms evolve in LMIC advances, practitioners will develop greater understanding of what works to help people lead change in harmful norms within their contexts. Awareness of these pitfalls has helped several of them increase the effectiveness of their interventions addressing social norms in the field. We are confident that others will benefit from these reflections as well