RESEARCH
What is the Evidence Base for Integrating Health and Environmental Approaches in the School Context to Nurture Healthier and More Environmentally Aware Young People? A Systematic Scoping Review of Global Evidence
Summary
This systematic scoping review aimed to synthesize existing academic and gray literature concerning the integration of health and environmental approaches within the mainstream school context (ages 3-18) globally. The research was driven by the increasing societal challenges posed by “wicked problems” related to human health and environmental change, recognizing that schools are crucial settings for shaping behaviors in early life. The study highlights the historical role of schools in public health, influenced by frameworks like the WHO’s Health Promoting Schools, and acknowledges the parallel development of ecologically friendly or sustainable school concepts. Despite integrated approaches gaining traction, the review sought to clarify the existing evidence base regarding what works and how in nurturing healthier and more environmentally aware young people through these combined strategies.
The study employed a systematic scoping review methodology following established guidelines to map the extent and range of evidence. The search strategy involved applying comprehensive search terms across ten health, education, and social science databases, as well as conducting searches for gray literature, covering a 20-year period between 1998 and 2018. Sources were included if they focused on mainstream schools and discussed activities, policies, curricula, ethos, or physical adaptations aimed at promoting both health/wellbeing and environmental sustainability awareness/action. A key characteristic of the scoping review design was that no formal quality assessment of the included sources was undertaken; instead, the goal was to broadly map the available literature. Data was abstracted on descriptive characteristics and a narrative synthesis was performed to identify approaches, theoretical frameworks, reported impacts, and knowledge gap.