To analyse teachers’ health views in order to obtain general trends in factors influencing health and health education and to fit them into the negative–positive model of health proposed by Downie and collaborators.
Method:
This large international study involved 15 countries from Western and Eastern Europe, North and Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South America, with high socioeconomic and cultural diversity. The questionnaire constructed and validated by the European FP6 project BIOHEAD-CITIZEN was applied in each country to a balanced sample of pre-service teachers (Pre) and in-service teachers (In) of primary schools (P) and secondary schools, teaching biology (B) or national language (L).
Results:
Women, older persons, those having longer higher university education, primary school teachers (compared to secondary teachers) and language teachers (compared to biology teachers) have a more positive view of health. The major difference was found between countries, rather than religion, where five groups emerged from cluster analysis.
Conclusion:
The study does not lead to a comprehensive view of factors influencing teachers’ perceptions of health but results showed that there is a variety of variables associated with health and health education views. These findings can contribute to facilitate developing appropriate specific health education teachers’ training courses.
HamelMBlanchetLMartinC. Nous serons bien mieux: Les déterminants de la santé et du bien-être des enfants d’âge scolaire [We’ll be much better: school children’s health and wellbeing determinants]. Québec: Les Publications officielles du Québec, Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux, 2001.
2.
GreenbergMTWeissbergRPO‘BrienMU. Enhancing school based prevention and youth development through coordinated social, emotional and academic learning’. Am Psychol, 2003: 58: 466–74.
3.
HanSSWeissB. Sustainability of teacher implementation of school-based mental health programs. J. Abnorm Child Psych, 2005: 33:665–79.
4.
Stewart-BrownS. What is the evidence on school health promotion in improving school health or preventing disease and specifically what is the effectiveness of the health promoting schools approach?Copenhagen: World Health Organization, 2006.
5.
St LegerLKolbeLLeeA. School health promotion – achievements, challengers and priorities. In: McQueenDVJonesCM (eds) Global perspectives on health promotion effectiveness (pp. 107–24). New York: Springer, 2007.
6.
International Union for Health Promotion and Health Education (IUHPE). Promoting health in schools – from evidence to action. Paris: IUHPE, 2010. Online. Available at: http://www.iuhpe.org/index.html?page=516&lang=en#sh_guidelines (accessed 25 August 2011).
7.
AroHHanninenVParonenO. Social support, life events and psychosomatic symptoms among 14–16-year-old adolescents. Soc Sci Med, 1989: 29: 1051–6.
8.
Seiffge-KrenkeIWeidemannSFentnerS. Coping with school-related stress in healthy and clinically referred adolescents. Eur Psychol, 2001: 6: 123–32.
9.
Ravens-SiebererUFreeemanJKokonyeiG. School as a determinant for health outcomes – a structural equation model analysis. Health Educ, 2009: 109: 342–56.
10.
International Union for Health Promotion and Health Education (IUHPE). Achieving health promoting schools: Guidelines for promoting health in schools. Paris: IUHPE, 2009. Online. Available at: http://www.iuhpe.org/index.html?page=516&lang=en#sh_guidelines (accessed 25 August 2011).
11.
AllensworthDDKolbeLJ. The comprehensive school health program: Exploring an expanded concept. J School Health, 1987: 57: 409–12.
12.
BarnekowVBuijsGCliftS. Health-promoting schools: A resource for developing indicators. Copenhagen: Council of Europe, World Health Organization, European Commission, 2006.
13.
JourdanDSamdalODiagneFCarvalhoGS. The future of health promotion in schools goes through the strengthening of teacher training at a global level. Promotion & Education, 2008: 15: 36–8.
14.
SimarCJourdanDPizonFBarnoinJ. Teacher’s professional positioning in relation to a health education program. Communication at the XIX World conference of IUHPE, Vancouver, Canada, 2007.
15.
DownieRSTannahillCTannahillA. Health promotion – models and values. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
16.
World Health Organization (WHO). Ottawa charter for health promotion. First International Conference on Health Promotion. Ottawa: WHO, 1986. Online. Available at: http://www.who.int/hpr/NPH/docs/ottawa_charter_hp.pdf (accessed 25 August 2011).
17.
World Health Organization (WHO). Constitution of the world health organization. Geneva: WHO, 1948.
18.
SanmartíLS. Educación sanitaria [Health education]. Madrid: Dias de Santos, 1985.
19.
NaidooJWillsJ. Health promotion – foundations for practice. London: Baillière Tindall, 1994.
20.
KatzJPeberdyA. Promoting health: Knowledge and practice. London: MacMillan, 1998.
21.
EwlesLSimnettI. Promoting health – A practical guide. London: Baillière Tindall, 1999.
22.
CarvalhoGSDantasCRaumaA-L. Comparing health education approaches in textbooks of sixteen countries. Sci Educ Inter, 2008: 19: 133–46.
23.
CarvalhoGSClémentP. Projecto ‘Educação em Biologia, Educação para a Saúde e Educação Ambiental para uma melhor cidadania’: análise de manuais escolares e concepções de professores de 19 países (europeus, africanos e do próximo oriente). [Project ‘Biology, health and environmental education for better citizenship’: textbook analysis and conceptions of teachers from 19 countries (from Europe, Africa and Middle East)]. Revista Brasileira de Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências2007: 7: 1–21.
24.
MunozFBognerFClémentPCarvalhoGS. Teachers’ conceptions of nature and environment in 16 countries. J Environ Psychol, 2009: 29: 407–13.
25.
CorderGWForemanDI. Nonparametric statistics for non-statisticians: A step-by-step approach. New Jersey: Wiley, 2009.
26.
De VecchiGGiordanA. L’enseignement scientifique – Comment faire pour que «ça marche? [Scientific learning – what to do to ‘make it work’?]. Paris: Delagrave Pédagogie et formation, 2002.
27.
CarvalhoGSSilvaRLimaN. Portuguese primary school children’s conceptions about digestion: Identification of learning obstacles. Inter J Sci Educ, 2004: 26: 1111–30.
28.
CarvalhoGSClémentP. Relationships between digestive, circulatory and urinary systems in portuguese Primary textbooks. Sci Educ Inter, 2007: 18: 15–24.
29.
JürgesH. True health vs response styles: Exploring cross-country differences in self-reported health. Health Econ., 2007: 16: 163–78.
30.
AbricJC. A structural approach to social representations in representations of the social: Bridging theoretical traditions. In: DeauxKPhilogèneG (eds) Representations of the social: Bridging theoretical traditions (pp. 42–7). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell, 2001.
31.
ClémentP. (2006). Didactic transposition and KVP model: Conceptions as interactions between scientific knowledge, values and social practices. In: CarvalhoGS (ed.) ESERA summer school (pp. 9–18). Braga: University of Minho, 2006.
32.
Roberts-GrayCScheirerM. Checking the congruence between a program and its organizational environment. In: ConradKJRoberts-GrayC (eds), New directions for program evaluation: No. 40. Evaluating program environments (pp. 63–82). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1988.
33.
French Ministry of Education. Programmes d’enseignement de l’école primaire [Teaching programmes for primary school] (A. du 9–6–2008). JO du 17–6–2008 NOR: MENE0813240A RLR : 514–4 MEN - DGESCO A1–1, 2008.
