HIA forecast: cloudy with sunny spells later?

Development of Guidelines for Health Impact Assessment in Southern Italy

Health impact assessment (HIA) is a multidisciplinary method aimed at assessing the health effects of policies, plans, and projects using quantitative, qualitative, and participatory techniques. In many European countries, such as in Italy, there is a lack of implementation of HIA procedures and it would be necessary to develop instruments and protocols in order to improve the specific skills of professionals involved in the assessment process. This article aims to describe the development and implementation of HIA guidelines, promoted by the Italian National Agency for Regional Health Services (AGENAS), in 4 Southern Italian regions. Public health search engine and institutional Web sites were consulted to collect international data existing in this field. Monthly workshops were then organized with regional representatives to discuss the scientific literature and to identify the guidelines' contents: source of data, stakeholders, screening- and scoping-phase checklist tools, priority areas, monitoring, and reporting plans. Four regions (Calabria, Campania, Puglia, and Sicilia) took part in the project. This article describes the methodology of development and implementation of HIA guidelines in the Italian context. The tools created to collect data and assess health consequences (such as screening and scoping grids) are reported. This project represents the first structured initiative proposed and supported by the Ministry of Health aiming to introduce HIA in Italy. HIA should be considered a priority in the public health agenda, as a fundamental instrument in helping decision makers to make choices about alternatives to prevent disease/injury and to actively promote health.

Characteristics of health impact assessments reported in Australia and New Zealand 2005-2009

Abstract

Objective

: To describe the use and reporting of Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in Australia and New Zealand between 2005 and 2009.

Methods

: We identified 115 HIAs undertaken in Australia and New Zealand between 2005 and 2009. We reviewed 55 HIAs meeting the study's inclusion criteria to identify characteristics and appraise the quality of the reports.

Results

: Of the 55 HIAs, 31 were undertaken in Australia and 24 in New Zealand. The HIAs were undertaken on plans (31), projects (12), programs (6) and policies (6). Compared to Australia, a higher proportion of New Zealand HIAs were on policies and plans and were rapid assessments done voluntarily to support decision-making. In both countries, most HIAs were on land use planning proposals. Overall, 65% of HIA reports were judged to be adequate.

Conclusion

: This study is the first attempt to empirically investigate the nature of the broad range of HIAs done in Australia and New Zealand and has highlighted the emergence of HIA as a growing area of public health practice. It identifies areas where current practice could be improved and provides a baseline against which future HIA developments can be assessed.

Implications:

There is evidence that HIA is becoming a part of public health practice in Australia and New Zealand across a wide range of policies, plans and projects. The assessment of quality of reports allows the development of practical suggestions on ways current practice may be improved. The growth of HIA will depend on ongoing organisation and workforce development in both countries.

Improving the use of evidence in health impact assessment

OBJECTIVE

Health impact assessment (HIA) has been proposed as one mechanism that can inform decision-making by public policy-makers. However, HIA methodology has been criticized for a lack of rigour in its use of evidence. The aim of this work was to formulate, develop and test a practical guide to reviewing publicly available evidence for use in HIA. The term evidence includes all scientific assessments, whether research studies in peer-reviewed journals or previous HIAs.

METHODS

The formulation and development of the guide involved substantial background research, qualitative research with the target audience, substantial consultations with potential users and other stakeholders, a pilot study to explore content, format and usability, and peer review. Finally, the guide was tested in practice by invited volunteers who used it to appraise existing HIA evidence reviews.

FINDINGS

During development, a wealth of data was generated on how the guide might be applied in practice, on terminology, on ensuring clarity of the text and on additional resources needed. The final guide provides advice on reviewing quantitative and qualitative research in plain language and is suitable for those working in public health but who may not have experience in reviewing evidence. During testing, it enabled users to discriminate between satisfactory and unsatisfactory evidence reviews. By late 2009, 1700 printed and 2500 downloaded copies of the guide had been distributed.

CONCLUSION

Substantive and iterative consultation, though time-consuming, was pivotal to producing a simple, systematic and accessible guide to reviewing publicly available research evidence for use in HIA.

Prioritizing policy interventions to improve diets? Will it work, can it happen, will it do harm?

Policies from non-health sectors have considerable impacts on the food environment and in turn on population nutrition. Health impact assessment (HIA) methods have been developed to identify the potential health effects of non-health policies; however, they are underused both within and outside the health sector. HIA and other assessment methods and tools can be used more extensively in health promotion to assist with the identification of the best policy options to pursue to improve and protect health. A participatory process is presented in this paper which combines HIAs with feasibility and effectiveness assessments. The intention is to enable health promoters to more accurately identify which policy change options would be most likely to improve diets, considering both impact and likelihood of implementation. The process was successfully used in Fiji and Tonga and provided a more systematic way of understanding which policy interventions showed the most promise.