Assessment of the Existing School Health Promotion Program in a Selected Educational Zone, Sri Lanka - Cross - Sectional Study
The health promotion school program was designed to promote the wellbeing of school students. This concept was introduced during the 1980s by the World Health Organization (WHO). In Sri Lanka; it was initiated and implemented in 2008 targeting all government schools. The aim of the study was to assess the existing school health promotion program. The cross-sectional study was implemented in May 2018 with all secondary schools in a selected education zone in Sri Lanka which represent three types of schools, 1AB, 1C and type 2. The study participants were students and teachers. The newly developed tool (Health Promoting School Assessment Tool) was used to assess the existing school health promotion program under six main criteria. The nominal group technique was followed to fill the assessment tool designed in the study where a team of teachers and a team of students separately took part in the assessment. The findings of the study show that the existing health promotion school program is partially unsuccessful in the selected educational zone. The existing situation of the school health promotion program, according to the main six criteria of the Health Promotion School Assessment Tool, was not at a satisfactory level of the implementation (38.2%). Only three schools (N=23) scored more than 50% while other schools (n=20, N=23) were scored less than 50%. According to the assessment, for each group of an individual school, there was a difference between teachers’ assessment and students’ assessment of the overall health promotion program. It is important to conduct continuous monitoring and have an evaluation plan for the school health promotion program to acquire effective changes in school settings.
Bonell, C., Wells, H., Harden, A., Jamal, F., Fletcher, A., Thomas, J., Moore, L. (2013). The effects on student health of interventions modifying the school environment: systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 67(8), 677-681.
CDC, (2018). Evaluation Briefs. Gaining Consensus among stakeholders through the nominal group technique: US department of health and human services; Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
Deschesnes, M., Martin, C., and Hill, A.J., (2003), Comprehensive approaches to school health promotion: how to achieve broader implementation. Health Promotion International, 18(4), 387-396
DCS, Ministry of Finance and Planning (2010). Annual Bulletin of Education Statistics.
Jacquelynne S Eccles. (1999). The development of children ages 6 to 14. The Future of Children, 9(2), 30-44.
Gugglberger, L., and Inchey, J., (2012). Phases of health promotion implementation into the scottish school system. Health Promotion International, 29(2), 256-66.
Langford, R., Bonell, C.P., Jones, H.E., Pouliou, T., Murphy, S.M., Waters, E., Komro, K.A., Gibbs, L.F., Magnus, D., Campbell, R. (2014). The WHO health promoting school framework for improving the health and well-being of students and their academic achievement. Available at:
Lee, A., Lo, A.S.C., Keung, M.W. et al. (2019). Effective health promoting school for better health of children and adolescents: indicators for success. BMC Public Health 19, 1088 doi:10.1186/s12889-019-7425-6
Lynagh, M., Schofield, M., and Sanson –Fisher, R., (1997). School health promoting program over a decade: a review of literature. Health Promotion International, 12(1), 44-60
Ministry of education. (2017). School census 2016- June-1.Battaramulla: Ministry of Education of Sri Lanka. Available at:
Parson, C., Stears, D., Thomas, C., Thomas, L., and Holland, J. (1997). The implementation of ENHPS in different national contexts. The European Network of Health Promoting Schools. WHO/ EURO, COPENHAGEN. Available at:
John L. Romano. (1992). Psychoeducational Interventions for Stress Management and Well‐Being. Journal of counseling and development, 71(2), 199-202
Samarasinghe, D., Guruge, D., Ranasinghe, R., Amunugama, S., Fernando, M., Indrawansha, S. (2011). “Saukya Prawardhana Kriwaliya”. Colombo, SRI LANKA.
Samdal, O., and Rowling, L., (2011), Theoretical and empirical base for implementation components of health promoting schools. Health Education, 111(15), 367-390
Whitelaw, S., Braxendale, A., Bryce, C., Mac Hardy, L., Young, L., Whitney, E. (2001). Settings based health promotion: a review. Health Promotion International. 16(22), 339-353.
WHO, (1986). Adopted at an International Conference on Health Promotion. In: The Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. Available at:
WHO, (1997). Promoting health through schools. Report of a WHO Expert Committee on Comprehensive School Health Education and Promotion. WHO Technical Report Series No.870. WHO, Geneva. Available at:
WHO/EURO, (1999). The European Network of Health Promoting Schools. WHO/EURO, Copenhagen,
Available at: http://email@example.com
Copyright (c) 2020 International Journal for Research in Applied Sciences and Biotechnology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.