1. History of HPU networks in Europe
 1995: The initial Health Promoting University to be designated as a settings
project was the University of Central Lancashire in Great Britain: exemplary
in the implementation of its comprehensive approach.
 1996 Close collaboration with the WHO Regional Office for Europe led to
the First International Conference on Health Promoting Universities, which
took place a year later in Great Britain.
 I997 HPU became an official component and sub-program of the WHO's
Healthy Cities project.
 1997 The first WHO Round Table Meeting on the “Criteria and Strategies for
a European Network of Health Promoting Universities” occurred in
Lancaster,
 1998 WHO publication on concepts, experiences and framework for action
(Agis Tsouros et al. 1998)
 1995 German Network of Health Promoting Universities founded. Is has
now more than 80 members is one of the largest and most active network of
universities as healthy settings.
 2006 Spanish Network of Health Promoting Universities (REUS)
 2006 The UK National Healthy Universities Network was established
 2010 EuroHPU - European Health Promoting Universities

2. The German Network of Health Promoting Universities
– Arbeitskreis Gesundheitsfördernde Hochschulen
 Founded in 1995 with initially 5 network members
 Coordinated by the Landesvereinigung für Gesundheit
Niedersachsen, as a health promotion agency in the
federal state of Lower Saxony
 During the last 20 years the network has grown to more
than 200 persons representing over 100 member
universities
 Goals: “to support the member organisations in their
processes towards a Health Promoting University and
therewith promote healthy working, living and learning
environments for students and staff”
 Mixture of an interpersonal and an interorganisational
network

3. Network Evaluation
 The aim of a network evaluation is the measurement of goal
attainment as well as analysing reasons for success and failure.
 Evaluation shall provide organisations with feedback on their actions
in order to initiate change processes on a rational basis.
 Networks are problematic evaluation objects due to their complexity,
multiple memberships, non-existing hierarchies and unclear borders.
 The “multi facetted network assessment instrument” has been
developed by Broesskamp-Stone (2004) to be used for evaluating
interorganisational networks.

4. Aims
 To asses:
 whether general network principles are realized in this
specific network
 whether the structures, processes and guiding
principles as well as the activities of the network are
adequate and sufficient in order reach the self-defined
visions and goals
 whether the networking activities have
contributed to health promoting outcomes in the
member universities.

5. Networking effects
 In 35% of the responding universities is „health“
integrated into the guiding principles of the institution.
 18% have adopted the criteria of good practice
developed by the network.
 The respondents reported an average of 4 health
promoting activities/programmes at their universities.
18% reported more than 10 activities/programmes.

6. Activities/programmes
Activity N
Valid
percent
Health day 10 30,3%
Non-smoker protection 10 30,3%
Implementation of health management 8 24,2%
Stress management programmes 7 21,2%
Addiction prevention programmes 5 15,2%
Health survey among staff 5 15,2%
Physical activity programmes 4 12,01%
Primary and secondary prevention programmes 4 12,1%
Integration of health into the continuous education of the staff 4 12,1%
Intervention guidelines 3 9,1%
Information material 3 9,1%
Workshops / project „health promoting university“ 3 9,1%
Health discussion groups 3 9,1%
Health survey among students 2 6,1%
Nutrition counselling 2 6,1%
Conflict management 2 6,1%
Development of guiding principles 1 3,0%
Health report 1 3,0%

7. Perceived health changes
27,6%
48,3%
20,7%
3,4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
stark positive
Veränderung
leicht positive
Veränderung
keine Veränderung neagative Veränderung
0,0%
46,7%
50,0%
3,3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
stark positive
Veränderung
leicht positive
Veränderung
keine Veränderung negative Veränderung
Very
positive
Very
positive
slightly
positive
slightly
positive
no
change
no
change
negative
change
negative
change
among staff among students

8. Success Story
 Vital growth and lively activities (regular meetings, theme
days, conferences, research activities, advocacy)
 Sponsoring partners (public agencies, health insurances)
 Quality Criteria of Good Practice – Good Practice Award
June 20098

9. Future directions
 Increase support within universities
 Focus on long-term strategies and goals - becoming part
of the governmental health promotion framework on
healthy settings
 Strengthening the implementation of health promotion
principles within universities
 Higher participation of students

10. Network definition
 Within health promotion “… a network appears to be a
more particular organizational from than an alliance or
partnership: while agreed upon, common or shared
issues or concerns are emphasized as well, in addition
relationships among members are further specified as
non-hierarchical and based on commitment and trust;
and the work process to reach goals is specified as not
only as “cooperative” but as proactive and systematic”
(Broesskamp-Stone, 2004).