COMPLETE SCHOOL PROJECT TOPICS & MATERIALS :
CHAPTERS: Chapter 1-5 | DOC FORMAT: MS WORD/PDF | PRICE: ₦5,000

BARRIERS TO EFFECTIVE SCHOOL HEALTH PROGRAM AMONG SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHERS IN ORUMBA NORTH LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

1.1 Background to the Study

Integrated, comprehensive and strategic school health programs have greater potential to achieve good results.1 In
1980, World Health Organization (WHO) orientation toward developing healthy structures instead of focusing only on
individual behaviors founded a comprehensive approach for the health promotion activities.2,3 The Health Promoting
Schools’ (HPS) initiative was implemented in 1995 by collaboration of the health promotion, education and
communication sectors, the intra-sectorial school health working group, and the regional office of WHO.4 This initiative
highlights capacity development and encouragement of participation, for health which all have been accepted as
powerful prerequisites to promote health and empowerment in schools.2,3 HPS addresses the relationship between
health and education which is clearly reflected in the Health for All and Education for All goals of the United Nations and
also in the social model of health which was corner stone of the Ottawa Charter.4,5 Attention and application of the
principles of the Ottawa Charter in schools and the focus has been put on the development of health promotion
structures led to the establishment of HPS.2,6
In Iran, with a population of about 75 million and a total of 13 million students, the initiative was first practiced in 2007. A
joint agreement between the Ministry of Health and Medical Education (MOHME) and Ministry of Education (MOE) was
signed and led to establishment of School Health Management System and also Schools’ Ranking Plan to support and
monitor local HPS programs that are exploited within the network of the country’s schools.5 The HPS initiative was first
exercised as a pilot program in East Azerbaijan Province at 36 schools in 2009-2010 and later it was expanded to 700
schools in 2011-2012.
HPS has been developed by WHO over the last decade and is being implemented globally.2 Studies on the
experiences of participating countries in the HPS have resulted to varying results and challenges. The most important
identified challenges were the mobilization of human resources and facilities to implement the initiative, inclusion of
societies as whole identities, policy makers, public, private and non-governmental sectors and, also students, their
parents and teachers.7 In the first meeting of the Caribbean HPS Network, the main obstacles to attain HPS aims were
defined as the lack of continuous funding, insufficient and unstable governmental support, inappropriate development of
HPS national networks, limited involvement, and restricted access to education and continuing education.8 The need to
strengthen collaboration between the education and health sectors, technical support, and insufficient funding were
among the major challenges listed by the European HPS Network.9 Leiger et al. (2001) referred to the insufficient
preparedness of teachers and educational institutions in terms of health issues, shortage of time and resources, and
weakness of facilities as the greatest barriers to achieve HPS goals.10 In the Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office
(EMRO), HPS member countries addressed the insufficient funding and technical expertise, lack of awareness among
the political leaders about the program, and also lack of infrastructures as key issues.11 HPS has now been adopted in
all EMRO countries, except for Afghanistan and Libya and through using different methods many local networks have
been established during the past decade.2,11 In Bahrain, HPS is organized by a committee comprising representatives
from WHO and the Ministry of Health. In Jordan, the committee comprises representatives from the Ministry of Health
and Education and is directed by the School Health Director-General of the Ministry of Health. Authorities in Lebanon
sought help from private and governmental sectors and international organizations to implement the program.

1.2 Problem Statement
Despite the importance of student health and school hygiene as an aspect of the infrastructure of community health,
few feasibility studies have been conducted on school health programs in developing countries such as Nigeria. This
study examined possible barriers to and challenges of such programs among secondary school teachers in Orumba
North Local Government.

1.3 Objective of the Study
The major objective to the study is to evaluate the barriers to effective school health program among secondary school
teachers in Orumba North Local Government.

1.4 Research Questions
(1) what is health programs?
(2) what are its advantages?
(3) what are the factors affecting its effectiveness in Secondary school?
1.5 Significance of the study
The study will give a clear insight into the barriers to effective school health programme among secondary school
teachers.There is however, insufficient evidence about the achievements of the plan and to the best of our knowledge
this study will be the first systematic attempt to investigate pros and cons of the executed program to identify potential
barriers and challenges school health programme have encountered in Orumba North local Government.
1.6 Scope of the Study
The research focuses on the barriers to effective school health programme among secondary school teachers in
Orumba North Local Government.

Refrences
1. St Leger L. Protocols and guidelines for health promoting schools. Promot & Educ. 2005;12:145–147. [PubMed]
2. Mũkoma W, Flisher AJ. Evaluations of health promoting schools: a review of nine studies. Health Promot Int.
2004;19:357–268. [PubMed]
3. Clift S, Jensen BB. The health promoting school: international advances in theory, evaluation and practice. Denmark:
Danish Education University Press; 2005.
4. Jones JT, Furner M. WHO’s Global School Health Initiative: Health Promoting-schools: a Healthy Setting for Living,
Learning and Working: World Health Organization, Division of Health Promotion, Education and Communication, Health
Education and Health Promotion Unit. Geneva: WHO; 1998.
5. Motlagh M, Chitchian M, Dashti M, Moslemi M, Aminaei T, Ardalan G, uidline for the implementation of the health
promoting schools in Islamic Republic of Iran. 2nd ed. Tehran: Ministry of Health, Office of Adolescent Health; 2011.
6. Whitehead D. The health-promoting school: what role for nursing? J Clin Nurs. 2006;15:264–271. [PubMed]
7. Ippolito-Shepherd J, Cerqueira MT, Ortega DP. Health-Promoting Schools Initiative in the Americas. Promot Educ.
2005;12:220–229, 180. [In Spanish]. [PubMed]
8. Ippolito-Shepherd J, Mantilla Castellanos L, Cerqueira MT. Health promoting schools: strengthening of the regional
initiative. Strategies and Lines of Action 2003-2012 (No. 4). Washington, DC: WHO, Health Promotion Series; 2003.
9. Rasmussen VB, Rivett D. The European Network of Health Promoting Schools–an alliance of health, education and
democracy. Health Educ (Lond) 2000;100:61–67.
10. St Leger L. Schools, health literacy and public health: possibilities and challenges. Health Promot Int. 2001;16:197–
205. [PubMed]
11. WHO/EMRO. Report on the Consultation on health-promoting schools in the Eastern Mediterranean Region sanaa,
Republice of Yemen 12-14 December 2005. Geneva: World Health Organisation Regional Office for the Eastern
Mediterranean Cairo;2006