Promoting Students' Health at University: Key Stakeholders, Cooperation, and Network Development

Abstract

Background: Cooperation among university units is considered a cornerstone for the promotion of students' health. The underlying mechanisms of health-promoting networks at universities have rarely been examined so far. Shedding light on partnerships is generally limited to the naming of allied actors in a network.Objectives and Methods: In this study, we used network analysis intending to visualize and describe the positions and characteristics of the network actors, and examine organizational relationships to determine the characteristics of the complete network.Results: The network analysis at hand provides in-depth insights into university structures promoting students' health comprising 33 organizational units and hundreds of ties. Both cooperation and communication network show a flat, non-hierarchical structure, which is reflected by its low centralization indices (39–43%) and short average distances (1.43–1.47) with low standard deviations (0.499–0.507), small diameter (3), and the non-existence of subgroups. Density lies between 0.53 and 0.57. According to the respondents, the University Sports Center is considered the most important actor in the context of students' health. Presidium and Institute of Sport and Sports Science play an integral role in terms of network functionality.Conclusion: In the health-promoting network, numerous opportunities for further integration and interaction of actors exist. Indications for transferring results to other universities are discussed. Network analysis enables universities to profoundly analyze their health-promoting structures, which is the basis for sustained network governance and development.

Health Literacy Among University Students: A Systematic Review of Cross-Sectional Studies

“…Universities should make use of their resources and offer health literacy courses for students in which content is used from disciplines available at the university (e.g., medicine, health, or psychology). Multisectoral and multidisciplinary efforts are essential in promoting health for students, since not only synergies with regard to knowledge and resources are enabled, but also access to certain student subpopulations are made possible (72). To increase effectiveness, health literacy courses should be adapted according to the different needs and characteristics of the student subgroups and should be linked to evaluative research.…”

A Review of Campus Recreation and Sport-Based Experience Literature in Higher Education Contexts

“…These investigated outcomes that occurred at the time of participation (i.e., during episodes), or indirectly after participation had concluded (i.e., between or after episodes) and outcomes could be considered either positive or negative. For example, many studies explored relationships between participation and various aspects of wellbeing such as physical fitness (e.g., Chrismas et al, 2019), socialization (e.g., Czekanski & Lower, 2019; Elkins et al, 2011), stress relief (e.g., Chang et al, 2019), happiness (e.g., Eubank & DeVita, 2021), health and wellness (e.g., Bachert et al, 2021; Forrester, 2015). Studies also investigated how participation led to the development of social capital (e.g., deBrun et al, 2021), leadership (e.g., Dugan et al, 2015), higher education learning outcomes (e.g., Flosdorf et al, 2016) and other workplace competencies (e.g., Brunton et al, 2020; Buzzelli, 2016).…”

Analyzing mechanisms of interdisciplinary cooperation in promoting students’ health at university

“…As common in literature on health-promoting universities, however, examination of partnerships was limited to the naming of allied university actors [ 83 , 84 ]. For the first time, in-depth information about structural characteristics of a network promoting students’ health at university obtained from social network analysis was presented by Bachert et al [ 85 ]. By analyzing 33 university actors and hundreds of ties in a network-analytical approach, key stakeholders were identified, network measures explored, and starting points for network development designated.…”

“…Preferential attachment, or in other words the so-called mechanism of cumulative advantage, is a process often encountered in social networks [ 93 , 94 ]. It can be assumed that the network at hand also shows this specific characteristic, because coordinating lead actors are common in the field of health services [ 95 ], especially in health-promoting universities [ 85 ]. Since GWDegree is a parameter that accounts for preferential avoidance [ 96 ], a negative parameter value suggests centralization, meaning that ties from low- to high-degree actors are more likely.…”