Health assets in a global context: a systematic review of the literature

Abstract

ObjectiveTo provide an up-to-date overview of health assets in a global context both from a theoretical perspective and its practical applications to address health inequalities and achieve sustainable health.DesignA systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Data sourcesA comprehensive search, including 10 electronic bibliographic databases and hand searches, was undertaken to capture the wide range of terms associated with ‘health assets’ and ‘asset-based approaches to health’.Eligibility criteriaAny peer-reviewed published and grey literature in English related to ‘health assets’ or ‘assets’ in a ‘health’ context was included without any date, country or study design restrictions and the quality of evidence was appraised according to the Oxford Level of Evidence.OutcomesA broad consideration of all outcome measures including clinical outcomes, patient-level, community-level and population-level impacts and costs, was adopted.Results478 publications were included. Health assets were researched in 40 countries, predominantly in the West such as the USA and the UK. A number of broad health assets were identified including community and individual assets. Even though research was conducted in a number of different settings, most occurred in the community, clinical, care or educational settings. A wide variety of interventions and approaches were implemented, most commonly related to education and/or training, asset mapping or asset approaches.ConclusionsGlobally, authors most often referred to general ‘health assets’, ‘assets’ or some form of ‘community asset’ in relation to health. Overall, the idea of health assets is framed within a positive paradigm focusing on health creation rather than curative approaches. The sustained credibility of the global ‘health assets’ literature depends on future research on definitional, theoretical and evaluative issues in order to convince policy-makers and service commissioners of its necessity and added value to the traditional deficit approach.

Understanding the Environment for Health-Promoting Schools Policies in Nova Scotia: A Comprehensive Scan at the Provincial and Regional School Level

“…More generally, findings appear to represent a shift away from more traditional HPS topics, such as physical activity, healthy eating, and sexual health, towards the inclusion of policies that could be viewed as either enablers or outcomes of HPS approaches, or that aim to create the conditions for improving health and well-being among students. Indeed, a recent systematic review identified policies as important ‘health assets’ that can serve to assist youth in advancing health and well-being for themselves and for others, citing the potential of a multi-level approach to health promotion in terms of supporting long-term behaviour change [ 16 ]. The notion of schools as health assets remains under-developed, however, and is worthy of further consideration given the key role that schools, and the policies enacted within them, can play in the lives of children and youth [ 16 ].…”

A Salutogenic Approach to Disaster Recovery: The Case of the Lac-Mégantic Rail Disaster

“…The approach and orientation of the Theory of Salutogenesis are now well established in health sciences and used in various health promotion settings and contexts [2]. Unlike traditional preventive approaches aimed at identifying risk factors, limitations or diseases, asset-based approaches are used to identify factors fostering well-being, resources, or abilities [3]. According to the scientific literature, a greater stock of health assets empowers individuals and communities and helps to improve health and well-being.…”

Improving Environmental Capacities for Health Promotion in Support Settings for People with Intellectual Disabilities: Inclusive Design of the DIHASID Tool

“…The DIHASID tool is underpinned by an ecological model and the theory of salutogenesis. This implicates a focus on multiple environmental levels and on protective or promotive factors rather than on barriers and needs, and a focus on assets [37,38].…”