There is a growing and diverse health promotion workforce in Europe; however, no overall body has responsibility for quality assuring standards of training and professional practice at the European level. This paper provides an overview of recent developments in Europe, including initiatives led by the International Union for Health Promotion and Education, in the context of developing a pan-European accreditation system. Specific developments on establishing national-level accreditation processes in the UK, Estonia and The Netherlands are examined. While there is limited experience in this field across Europe, lessons can be learned from those countries with established systems. This paper focuses on those countries which have developed competencies, standards and accreditation systems, and the implications for developing a pan-European accreditation system are discussed. Differences between countries in the formats, content and processes of developing accreditation, coupled with the different educational, practice, political and resource situations, reflect the complexity of developing a pan-European system that is flexible, relevant and comprehensive. The development of competencies, standards and accreditation is not intended to be directed at health promotion specialists alone but aims to assure quality in performance of all those who contribute to health promotion, from whatever background or area of professional practice. It is likely that there will be a need to develop a robust system that will accommodate different levels of accreditation for different levels and fields of practice. Developing a pan-European accreditation system poses a significant challenge but also presents a unique opportunity to form a solid basis for building capacity and assuring quality for health promotion practice, research and training across the European region.

No abstract

The urgency and scale of contemporary health challenges are enormous. The review It's Our Health! published in 2006 found that social marketing had considerable potential to increase the effectiveness of health improvement work, with the intention that it should build on core health promotion principles and not replace them. Health promotion has, however, lost its focus and identity in recent years in some parts of the country, partly due to repeated organizational change, and it has suffered from a lack of proactive workforce development. Over the last year, the National Social Marketing Centre (NSMC) and the Shaping the Future of Health Promotion Collaboration (StFofHP), hosted by the Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH), have explored the relationship between social marketing and health promotion and led a debate with stakeholders. A Delphi consultation with an expert panel drawn from specialists and strategic leaders in several settings, and the academic community, is currently under way and will report in the autumn. Findings so far emphasize the wide variation in understanding and interpretation of the two skill sets, much confusion about definitions and what added value both health promotion and social marketing bring to health improvement. Some of the distinctive contributions of both are described in this paper.

No abstract

There are at least three types of health education. The first and most common is education about the body and how to look after it. The provision of information and advice on human biology and hygiene is vital for each new generation.