ArticleHealth promotion international2025
Implementation support structure for the Dutch Health Promoting School program: a multiple case study.
Article in Health promotion international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A scoping review of instruments measuring the implementation of the Health-Promoting School approach.Health promotion international · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Support structures are available to schools worldwide for the implementation of Health Promoting School (HPS) programs. To get more insight in these structures, this multiple case study aimed to map variation in levels of support within eight Public Health Service (PHS) regions in the Netherlands and associations with contextual factors. Designed together with a Community of Practice, the study included two rounds of semistructured group interviews (N = 1-4 employees; ±3.5 hours per case) and document analysis. Data were collected on eight indicators of the level of support (e.g. intensity and reach) and 24 contextual factors relating to Healthy School Advisers, PHSs, stakeholder collaboration, and the wider context. Scores were assigned for all indicators and factors per region, and patterns were examined. Results showed large variation in the level of support across cases, mainly in intensity of provided support, integration in the PHS, and reach in terms of percentage of certified HPS schools. Some aspects such as advisers' context sensitivity scored low in all cases. Key contextual factors were related to the PHS: its policy, internal support, capacity, and (structural) budget. Other important factors related to collaboration with regional stakeholders: coordination, division of responsibilities, and communication structure. Structural budget and strategic stakeholder coordination could be improved in all cases. In conclusion, there is much room for improvement toward sufficient and higher quality HPS implementation support for all schools in the Netherlands. To strengthen support, it is important to establish commitment of the PHS organization, strong coordination between stakeholders, and strong national positioning of the HPS program. These conclusions might also apply to other countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.