Use of health impact assessment in incorporating health considerations in decision making

A New Framework for Monitoring and Evaluating Health Impact Assessment: Capitalising on a French Case Study with the Literature in Evaluation

Health impact assessment (HIA) is a prospective approach that aims to identify the potential consequences of policies or projects on health in order to propose measures to make them healthier. Initiated in the late nineties, the approach emerged over ten years ago in France. However, the evaluation of HIA effectiveness remains seldomly practised and its theoretical background should be deepened. The aim of this article is to generate a discussion on how to evaluate HIA effectiveness and contribute to its methodological tooling, drawing on an evaluative experience of multiple French HIAs. Our work is based on an iterative approach between an analysis of the evaluation literature and a critical look at an HIA evaluation. We first carried out the evaluation of three HIAs in 2017-2018, combining a normative approach and qualitative research in order to explore each HIA as a phenomenon in its own context. Two years later, we conducted a self-assessing expertise on this evaluation, supported by an analysis of the literature in the field of public policy evaluation, in order to refine the theoretical framework for evaluating HIA effectiveness and ultimately to enhance professional practice by evaluators. This work led to the production of a logic model that identifies, through three dimensions (context, implementation and governance), the multiple pathways that HIA may take to bring about change. It also seeks to show the interdependence of these pathways towards change and helps identify the key drivers and mechanisms of HIA success. In this respect, it complements existing HIA evaluation models as it can serve both as a generic framework for evaluating HIA effectiveness and as an instrument for monitoring HIA implementation.

Implementation of Health Impact Assessment in the Healthcare System of the Republic of Kazakhstan

The Health Impact Assessment (hereinafter referred to as HIA) is an effective method for predicting potential health impacts from decisions. Little is known about the implementation of the HIA in the Republic of Kazakhstan (further, RK). In addition, the Russian language literature has not yet been reviewed in terms of HIA-related knowledge. By conducting a literature review of enabling factors, including Russian language literature, on the implementation of the HIA and studying governance systems in RK, we aim to suggest an implementation process to implement the HIA in RK. After careful analysis of the governance system, we suggest set up of a HIA support unit under the National Scientific Center for Health Development and discuss the possible benefits. The proposed center should guide the implementation of the HIA in RK.

Governance of Intersectoral Collaborations for Population Health and to Reduce Health Inequalities in High-Income Countries: A Complexity-Informed Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

A 'Health in All Policies' (HiAP) approach has been widely advocated as a way to involve multiple government sectors in addressing health inequalities, but implementation attempts have not always produced the expected results. Explaining how HiAP-style collaborations have been governed may offer insights into how to improve population health and reduce health inequalities.

METHODS

Theoretically focused systematic review. Synthesis of evidence from evaluative studies into a causal logic model.

RESULTS

Thirty-one publications based on 40 case studies from nine high-income countries were included. Intersectoral collaborations for population health and equity were multi-component and multi-dimensional with collaborative activity spanning policy, strategy, service design and service delivery. Governance of intersectoral collaboration included structural and relational components. Both internal and external legitimacy and credibility delivered collaborative power, which in turn enabled intersectoral collaboration. Internal legitimacy was driven by multiple structural elements and processes. Many of these were instrumental in developing (often-fragile) relational trust. Internal credibility was supported by multi-level collaborations that were adequately resourced and shared power. External legitimacy and credibility was created through meaningful community engagement, leadership that championed collaborations and the identification of 'win-win' strategies. External factors such as economic shocks and short political cycles reduced collaborative power.

CONCLUSION

This novel review, using systems thinking and causal loop representations, offers insights into how collaborations can generate internal and external legitimacy and credibility. This offers promise for future collaborative activity for population health and equity; it presents a clearer picture of what structural and relational components and dynamics collaborative partners can focus on when planning and implementing HiAP initiatives. The limits of the literature base, however, does not make it possible to identify if or how this might deliver improved population health or health equity.

Predicted and observed impacts of COVID-19 lockdowns: two Health Impact Assessments in Scotland and Wales

Health Impact Assessment is a key approach used internationally to identify positive or negative impacts of policies, plans and proposals on health and well-being. In 2020, HIAs were undertaken in Scotland and Wales to identify the potential health and well-being impacts of the 'stay at home' and physical distancing measures implemented at the start of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. There is sparse evidence evaluating whether the impacts predicted in HIAs occur following policy implementation. This paper evaluates the impacts anticipated in the COVID-19 HIAs against actual observed trends. The processes undertaken were compared and predicted impacts were tabulated by population groups and main determinants of health. Routine data and literature evidence were collated to compare predicted and observed impacts. Nearly all health impacts anticipated in both HIAs have occurred in the direction predicted. There have been significant adverse impacts through multiple direct and indirect pathways including loss of income, social isolation, disruption to education and services, and psychosocial effects. This research demonstrates the value of prediction in impact assessment and fills a gap in the literature by comparing the predicted impacts identified within the HIAs with observed trends. Post-COVID-19 recovery should centre health and well-being within future policies and decisions. Processes like HIA can support this as part of a 'health in all policies' approach to improve the health and well-being of populations.

Estimating risk factor attributable burden - challenges and potential solutions when using the comparative risk assessment methodology

Background

Burden of disease analyses quantify population health and provide comprehensive overviews of the health status of countries or specific population groups. The comparative risk assessment (CRA) methodology is commonly used to estimate the share of the burden attributable to risk factors. The aim of this paper is to identify and address some selected important challenges associated with CRA, illustrated by examples, and to discuss ways to handle them. Further, the main challenges are addressed and finally, similarities and differences between CRA and health impact assessments (HIA) are discussed, as these concepts are sometimes referred to synonymously but have distinctly different applications.

Results

CRAs are very data demanding. One key element is the exposure-response relationship described e.g. by a mathematical function. Combining estimates to arrive at coherent functions is challenging due to the large variability in risk exposure definitions and data quality. Also, the uncertainty attached to this data is difficult to account for. Another key issue along the CRA-steps is to define a theoretical minimal risk exposure level for each risk factor. In some cases, this level is evident and self-explanatory (e.g., zero smoking), but often more difficult to define and justify (e.g., ideal consumption of whole grains). CRA combine all relevant information and allow to estimate population attributable fractions (PAFs) quantifying the proportion of disease burden attributable to exposure. Among many available formulae for PAFs, it is important to use the one that allows consistency between definitions, units of the exposure data, and the exposure response functions. When combined effects of different risk factors are of interest, the non-additive nature of PAFs and possible mediation effects need to be reflected. Further, as attributable burden is typically calculated based on current exposure and current health outcomes, the time dimensions of risk and outcomes may become inconsistent. Finally, the evidence of the association between exposure and outcome can be heterogeneous which needs to be considered when interpreting CRA results.

Conclusions

The methodological challenges make transparent reporting of input and process data in CRA a necessary prerequisite. The evidence for causality between included risk-outcome pairs has to be well established to inform public health practice.

Indoor Air Pollution Exposure of Women in Adama, Ethiopia, and Assessment of Disease Burden Attributable to Risk Factor

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

Air pollution, a major environmental threat to human health, contributes to the premature deaths of millions of people worldwide. Cooking with solid fuels, such as charcoal and wood, in low- and middle-income countries generates very high emissions of particulate matter within and near the household as a result of their inefficient combustion. Women are especially exposed, as they often perform the cooking. The purpose of this study was to assess the burden of disease attributable to household air pollution exposure from cooking among women in Adama, Ethiopia.

METHODS

AirQ+ software (WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark) was used to assess the health impact of household air pollution by estimating the burden of disease (BoD) including Acute Lower Respiratory Infections (ALRI), Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), Ischemic Heart Disease (IHD), lung cancer, and stroke, among a cohort of women in Adama. Household air pollution exposure estimated by cooking fuel type was assessed through questionnaires.

RESULTS

Three-quarters (75%) of Adama's population used solid fuel for cooking; with this, the household air pollution attributable mortality was estimated to be 50% (95% CI: 38-58%) due to ALRI, 50% (95% CI: 35-61%) due to COPD, 50% (95% CI: 27-58%) due to lung cancer, (95% CI: 23-48%) due to IHD, and (95% CI: 23-51%) due to stroke. The corresponding disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) per 100,000 women ranged between 6000 and 9000 per disease.

CONCLUSIONS

This health impact assessment illustrates that household air pollution due to solid fuel use among women in Adama leads to premature death and a substantial quantity of DALYs. Therefore, decreasing or eliminating solid fuel use for cooking purposes could prevent deaths and improve quality of life.

L’efficacité de l’évaluation d’impact sur la santé : leçons tirées d’une expérience dans l’agglomération bordelaise

INTRODUCTION

This work presents the results of an impact evaluation applied to an HIA of an urban development project. The purpose of the evaluation was to assess the direct effects of the HIA procedure on the decision making by the implementation of the recommendations as well as its indirect effects in terms of stakeholders’ appropriation and use of the information produced throughout the process.

METHODS

12 semi-structured interviews were conducted with HIA stakeholders including regional public health directors and professionals, local elected officials, and technical staff from the engaged local authorities.

RESULTS

Data collected confirmed HIA indirect impacts in terms of interviewees’ enhanced values and beliefs according to a holistic model of health, changes in professional practices through appropriation of the knowledge generated throughout the process and strengthening of intersectoral collaborations for health. More modest results were identified regarding HIA direct effects on decision making through the consideration of the proposed recommendations because of their redundancy with technical teams’ routine practices and their late timing. Nevertheless, interest in capitalizing on these recommendations for future municipal and metropolitan projects suggests deferred effects on decision making that should not be neglected.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides new data on the effectiveness, to varying degrees, of one of the first HIAs conducted in the region of Nouvelle Aquitaine. Other evaluations should be promoted in France to demonstrate HIA value and to draw useful lessons to inform its further development and consolidation in the coming years.

L’évaluation d’impact sur la santé pour scruter et sculpter les politiques

Health impact assessment (HIA) is a prospective approach that consists of identifying the potential consequences, both negative and positive, of an intervention on the health of populations with the aim of improving it. Identified as a specific practice in 1999, it rapidly gained in popularity and was progressively deployed on all continents with variations in terms of implementation strategies, area of application, scales of implementation, modes of governance, institutions and actors involved. It is currently booming in France and Quebec, where it is generating real expectations with regard to the issues of health inequalities, democracy and the coordination of sectoral policies. This article, based on our research, provides a brief portrait of HIA in France and introduces questions on the strengths, limitations and added-value of the approach. This special issue sheds light on the practice through applications in different fields and contexts, emphasizes the methodological, political and social issues related to the process as well as the challenges to be met in order to strengthen the potential of HIA to improve decision-making and develop policies and projects that promote health.

Using health impact assessment (HIA) to understand the wider health and well-being implications of policy decisions: the COVID-19 'staying at home and social distancing policy' in Wales

BACKGROUND

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is promoted as a decision-informing tool by public health and governmental agencies. HIA is beneficial when carried out as part of policy development but is also valuable as a methodology when a policy is being implemented to identify and understand the wider health and well-being impacts of policy decisions, particularly when a decision needs to be taken rapidly to protect the population. This paper focusses on a HIA of the 'Staying at Home and Social Distancing Policy' or 'lockdown' in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Wales conducted by the Welsh national public health institute. It describes the process and findings, captures the learning and discusses how the process has been used to better understand the wider health and well-being impacts of policy decisions beyond direct health harm. It also examines the role of public health institutes in promoting and using HIA.

METHODS

A HIA was conducted following a standard HIA five step process. A literature review was undertaken alongside 15 qualitative semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, and relevant health and demographic data were collated. The results were triangulated and analysed to form a holistic assessment of the policy decision and its impacts.

RESULTS

A wide range of major health and well-being impacts of the lockdown in Wales were identified across the determinants of health, which included positive and negative social, economic, environmental and mental well-being impacts beyond the impact on direct health. Populations affected included children and young people, those on low incomes and women as well as those whose health has been directly impacted by COVID-19 such as older people. The work highlighted the benefit that HIA can bring in emphasizing impacts which can inform policy and shared learning with others.

CONCLUSION

HIA is a largely underused tool to understand the impact of policy and political decisions, particularly when a decision has been taken at speed. This case study highlights how HIA provide evidence and information for advocacy and further work by public health institutes, health agencies and policy makers.

A tool for assessing the climate change mitigation and health impacts of environmental policies: the Cities Rapid Assessment Framework for Transformation (CRAFT)

Background: A growing number of cities, including Greater London, have set ambitious targets, including detailed policies and implementation plans, to reach global goals on sustainability, health, and climate change. Here we present a tool for a rapid assessment of the magnitude of impact of specific policy initiatives to reach these targets. The decision-support tool simultaneously quantifies the environmental and health impacts of specified selected policies. Methods: The 'Cities Rapid Assessment Framework for Transformation (CRAFT)' tool was applied to Greater London. CRAFT quantifies the effects of ten environmental policies on changes in (1) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, (2) exposures to environmental hazards, (3) travel-related physical activity, and (4) mortality (the number of attributable deaths avoided in one typical year). Publicly available data and epidemiological evidence were used to make rapid quantitative estimates of these effects based on proportional reductions in GHG emissions and environmental exposures from current baseline levels and to compute the mortality impacts. Results: The CRAFT tool estimates that, of roughly 50,000 annual deaths in Greater London, the modelled hazards (PM 2.5 (from indoor and outdoor sources), outdoor NO 2, indoor radon, cold, overheating) and low travel-related physical activity are responsible for approximately 10,000 premature environment-related deaths. Implementing the selected polices could reduce the annual mortality number by about 20% (~1,900 deaths) by 2050. The majority of these deaths (1,700) may be avoided through increased uptake in active travel. Thus, out of ten environmental policies, the 'active travel' policy provides the greatest health benefit. Also, implementing the ten policies results in a GHG reduction of around 90%. Conclusions: The CRAFT tool quantifies the effects of city policies on reducing GHG emissions, decreasing environmental health hazards, and improving public health. The tool has potential value for policy makers through providing quantitative estimates of health impacts to support and prioritise policy options.

A framework for identifying and mitigating the equity harms of COVID-19 policy interventions

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic. Governments have implemented combinations of "lockdown" measures of various stringencies, including school and workplace closures, cancellations of public events, and restrictions on internal and external movements. These policy interventions are an attempt to shield high-risk individuals and to prevent overwhelming countries' healthcare systems, or, colloquially, "flatten the curve." However, these policy interventions may come with physical and psychological health harms, group and social harms, and opportunity costs. These policies may particularly affect vulnerable populations and not only exacerbate pre-existing inequities but also generate new ones.

METHODS

We developed a conceptual framework to identify and categorize adverse effects of COVID-19 lockdown measures. We based our framework on Lorenc and Oliver's framework for the adverse effects of public health interventions and the PROGRESS-Plus equity framework. To test its application, we purposively sampled COVID-19 policy examples from around the world and evaluated them for the potential physical, psychological, and social harms, as well as opportunity costs, in each of the PROGRESS-Plus equity domains: Place of residence, Race/ethnicity, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital, Plus (age, and disability).

RESULTS

We found examples of inequitably distributed adverse effects for each COVID-19 lockdown policy example, stratified by a low- or middle-income country and high-income country, in every PROGRESS-Plus equity domain. We identified the known policy interventions intended to mitigate some of these adverse effects. The same harms (anxiety, depression, food insecurity, loneliness, stigma, violence) appear to be repeated across many groups and are exacerbated by several COVID-19 policy interventions.

CONCLUSION

Our conceptual framework highlights the fact that COVID-19 policy interventions can generate or exacerbate interactive and multiplicative equity harms. Applying this framework can help in three ways: (1) identifying the areas where a policy intervention may generate inequitable adverse effects; (2) mitigating the policy and practice interventions by facilitating the systematic examination of relevant evidence; and (3) planning for lifting COVID-19 lockdowns and policy interventions around the world.

A tool for assessing the climate change mitigation and health impacts of environmental policies: the Cities Rapid Assessment Framework for Transformation (CRAFT)

Background: A growing number of cities, including Greater London, have set ambitious targets, including detailed policies and implementation plans, to reach global goals on sustainability, health, and climate change. Here we present a tool for a rapid assessment of the magnitude of impact of specific policy initiatives to reach these targets. The decision-support tool simultaneously quantifies the environmental and health impacts of specified selected policies. Methods: The 'Cities Rapid Assessment Framework for Transformation (CRAFT)' tool was applied to Greater London. CRAFT quantifies the effects of ten environmental policies on changes in (1) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, (2) exposures to environmental hazards, (3) travel-related physical activity, and (4) mortality (the number of attributable deaths avoided in one typical year). Publicly available data and epidemiological evidence were used to make rapid quantitative estimates of these effects based on proportional reductions in GHG emissions and environmental exposures from current baseline levels and to compute the mortality impacts. Results: The CRAFT tool estimates that, of roughly 50,000 annual deaths in Greater London, the modelled hazards (PM 2.5 (from indoor and outdoor sources), outdoor NO 2, indoor radon, cold, overheating) and low travel-related physical activity are responsible for approximately 10,000 premature environment-related deaths. Implementing the selected polices could reduce the annual mortality number by about 20% (~1,900 deaths) by 2050. The majority of these deaths (1,700) may be avoided through increased uptake in active travel. Thus, out of ten environmental policies, the 'active travel' policy provides the greatest health benefit. Also, implementing the ten policies results in a GHG reduction of around 90%. Conclusions: The CRAFT tool quantifies the effects of city policies on reducing GHG emissions, decreasing environmental health hazards, and improving public health. The tool has potential value for policy makers through providing quantitative estimates of health impacts to support and prioritise policy options.

Framework for Participatory Quantitative Health Impact Assessment in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Background: Conducting health impact assessments (HIAs) is a growing practice in various organizations and countries, yet scholarly interest in HIAs has primarily focused on the synergies between exposure and health outcomes. This limits our understanding of what factors influence HIAs and the uptake of their outcomes. This paper presents a framework for conducting participatory quantitative HIA (PQHIA) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), including integrating the outcomes back into society after an HIA is conducted. The study responds to the question: what are the different components of a participatory quantitative model that can influence HIA implementation in LMICs? Methods: To build the framework, we used a case study from a PQHIA fieldwork model developed in Port Louis (Mauritius). To explore thinking on the participatory components of the framework, we extract and analyze data from ethnographic material including fieldnotes, interviews, focus group discussions and feedback exercises with 14 stakeholders from the same case study. We confirm the validity of the ethnographic data using five quality criteria: credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability, and authenticity. We build the PQHIA framework connecting the main HIA steps with factors influencing HIAs. Results: The final framework depicts the five standard HIA stages and summarizes participatory activities and outcomes. It also reflects key factors influencing PQHIA practice and uptake of HIA outcomes: costs for participation, HIA knowledge and interest of stakeholders, social responsibility of policymakers, existing policies, data availability, citizen participation, multi-level stakeholder engagement and multisectoral coordination. The framework suggests that factors necessary to complete a participatory HIA are the same needed to re-integrate HIA results back into the society. There are three different areas that can act as facilitators to PQHIAs: good governance, evidence-based policy making, and access to resources. Conclusions: The framework has several implications for research and practice. It underlines the importance of applying participatory approaches critically while providing a blueprint for methods to engage local stakeholders. Participatory approaches in quantitative HIAs are complex and demand a nuanced understanding of the context. Therefore, the political and cultural contexts in which HIA is conducted will define how the framework is applied. Finally, the framework underlines that participation in HIA does not need to be expensive or time consuming for the assessor or the participant. Yet, participatory quantitative models need to be contextually developed and integrated if they are to provide health benefits and be beneficial for the participants. This integration can be facilitated by investing in opportunities that fuel good governance and evidence-based policy making.

A Comparative Analysis of Health Impact Assessment Implementation Models in the Regions of Montérégie (Québec, Canada) and Nouvelle-Aquitaine (France)

Many countries have introduced health impact assessment (HIA) at the national, regional, or local levels. In France and in Québec, there is increasing interest in using HIA to inform decision-makers and influence policies, programs, and projects. This paper aims to compare HIA implementation models in two regions: Nouvelle-Aquitaine (France) and Montérégie (Québec, Canada) using a case study methodology. The objective is to gain a better understanding of the similarities and differences in the approaches used to achieve the operationalization of HIA. The methodological approach involves four steps: (1) design of an analytical framework based on the literature; (2) exchanges within the research team and review of documents concerning the two implementation strategies under study; (3) development of the case studies based on the proposed framework; and (4) cross-comparison analysis of the case studies. The findings show that the two regions share certain similarities, including the strong commitment and political will of the public health organizations involved and a well-established culture of engaging in intersectoral action with municipal partners. Differences mainly concern their different approaches to implementing HIAs in accordance with the regional policies and the organizational and administrative contexts in place. This study identifies potential avenues for supporting the practice of HIA at the municipal level.

Mainstreaming health impact assessments in environmental impact statements into planning obligations in post dam construction in Metolong, Lesotho: A qualitative investigation

Health impact assessment (HIA) is internationally identified as a mechanism for ensuring that potential health impacts of project proposals are considered before project implementation. This study examined the inclusion of HIAs in environmental impact statement (EIS) and their translation into planning obligations of a dam project in Lesotho. A framework premised on the general systems theory, and integrating EIS contents, environmental management plans and monitoring obligations in post dam construction was used as the analytic lens. A review of the EIS was conducted to assess HIAs covered during the environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the dam. Data drawn from selected household questionnaire interviews and analysis of related documents was used to assess the extent of HIA mainstreaming into planning and monitoring obligations in post dam construction. Results showed inclusion of HIAs in EIS, including endemic diseases such as sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and HIV/AIDS, acute respiratory infections, pharyngitis, hypertension, influenza and diarrhea. Social, economic and environmental conditions were identified as major determinants of health; while mental and nutritional determinants of health were less discussed. The results also showed that some HIAs included in EIS influenced decision-making in relation to raising awareness of health issues in the community. Deficiencies were however reported by respondents in relation to mainstreaming of several HIA recommendations. HIAs can be useful in promoting community health and mitigating adverse impacts of decisions made by project proponents.

Health Impact Assessments in Spain: Have They Been Effective?

Background: Health impact assessment (HIA) has scarcely been developed in Spain, in comparison with other European countries. Moreover, little is known about the effectiveness of HIA, taking into account direct impacts—changes on the decision-making process—as well as indirect impacts or those related to the process outcomes. From this broad perspective of HIA usefulness, the purpose was to assess the effectiveness of five HIAs carried out in Spain at the local level, and the role played by context and process factors on these impacts. Methods: We carried out a qualitative study based on 14 interviews to HIAs participants from different sectors. A documentary review and nonparticipant observation techniques were implemented for an in depth understanding. Results: The direct effectiveness of the HIAs was partial, but they had indirect effectiveness in all cases. The institutional and socio-political context, however, was not favorable to effectiveness. The elements of the process were largely determined by the context, although their influence, mediated by the role of proactive individuals, favored the effectiveness of the HIAs. Conclusions: When assessing HIA effectiveness, it is important to take into account a broad perspective on the nature of impacts and those factors influencing direct and indirect effectiveness. In Spain, the institutional and sociopolitical context was less favorable to HIA effectiveness than process-related factors. In order to implement the Health in All Policies strategy, will be necessary to improve context-related factors, such as institutional facilitators for HIA and democratic quality.

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) of a fluvial environment recovery project in a medium-sized Spanish town

INTRODUCTION

The Interdepartamental Public Health Plan of Catalonia (2014) seeks to enforce Health in All Policies (HiAP) at the regional and local levels. Within this context, the City Council of Sant Andreu de la Barca (SAB), the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona (MAB), and the Public Health Agency of Catalonia started a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) of an urbanistic redesign of the Llobregat fluvial area in SAB, the results of which are presented in this paper.

METHODOLOGY

In 2018, after a HIA screening, a prospective nonquantitative HIA was conducted. Politicians, professionals, and citizens participated in identifying potential impacts. Impacts were prioritized and linked to health determinants, scientific evidence, and potentially affected social groups. Afterwards, recommendations were formulated in order to improve the health impacts of the project. Finally, indicators were selected to evaluate HIA implementation.

RESULTS

The HIA was successfully implemented with the participation of technicians and citizens of SAB. The health impacts identified were mainly related to environmental, public safety, lifestyle, socioeconomic, and political contexts. Ten recommendations were defined to minimize the potential negative health impacts of the project, with six of them directly included and only one dismissed due to incompatibility.

CONCLUSION

A HIA was successfully carried out in the medium-sized town of Catalonia, promoting Health in all Policies at a local level and improving health impacts of an urbanistic project.

Systematic Literature Review of Health Impact Assessments in Low and Middle-Income Countries

Health Impact Assessments (HIAs) motivate effective measures for safeguarding public health. There is consensus that HIAs in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) are lacking, but no study systematically focuses on those that have been successfully conducted across all regions of the world, nor do they highlight factors that may enable or hinder their implementation. Our objectives are to (1) systematically review, geographically map, and characterize HIA activity in LMICs; and (2) apply a process evaluation method to identify factors which are important to improve HIA implementation in LMICs. A systematic review of peer-reviewed HIAs in 156 LMICs was performed in Scopus, Medline, Web of Science, Sociological abstracts, and LILACs (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences) databases. The search used PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and covered HIAs across all type of interventions, topics, and health outcomes. HIAs were included if they reported a clear intervention and health outcome to be assessed. No time restriction was applied, and grey literature was not included. The eligible studies were subjected to six process evaluation criteria. The search yielded 3178 hits and 57 studies were retained. HIAs were conducted in 26 out of 156 countries. There was an unequal distribution of HIAs across regions and within LMICs countries. The leading topics of HIA in LMICs were air pollution, development projects, and urban transport planning. Most of the HIAs reported quantitative approaches (72%), focused on air pollution (46%), appraised policies (60%), and were conducted at the city level (36%). The process evaluation showed important variations in the way HIAs have been conducted and low uniformity in the reporting of six criteria. No study reported the time, money, and staff used to perform HIAs. Only 12% of HIAs were based on participatory approaches; 92% of HIAs considered multiple outcomes; and 61% of HIAs provided recommendations and fostered cross-national collaboration. The limited transparency in process, weak participation, and inconsistent delivery of recommendations were potential limitations to HIA implementation in low and middle-income countries. Scaling and improving HIA implementation in low and middle-income countries in the upcoming years will depend on expanding geographically by increasing HIA governance, adapting models and tools in quantitative methods, and adopting better reporting practices.

[Can health impact assessment influence policies relating to green spaces in urban areas?]

Growing urbanisation in the last decades and the increase in population density have significantly contributed to lessening contacts between people and nature. In response to this phenomenon, the consideration given to the role played by nature in urban environments has increased uninterruptedly, supported by the social demand for a greener urban environment. Health impact assessment is an approach aimed at anticipating the consequences of policies, projects or laws on health, prior to their implementation, and offering suggestions for readjustments that limit negative impacts and reinforce positive ones. It has been developing in France since 2010 mostly in connection with urban planning projects in which green space development is an important feature. This article examines HIA's capacity to influence urban planning choices and policies to make them greener, fairer and more beneficial to health.

Health impact assessment on urban development projects in France: finding pathways to fit practice to context

In France, there is increasing interest in health impact assessments (HIAs) and most are performed on urban projects. The field of expertise is still under development and mostly established within the public health sector. To date, in France, all HIAs conducted in urban planning are stand-alone HIAs disconnected from the required environmental impact assessment (EIA). The paper opens with an introduction of the close and complex relationship between health and urban planning, HIA and a description of key elements needed for understanding the French context. Then, the paper analyses the context and the implementation process for four HIAs in progress in order to understand the specific characteristics of urban development, identify the key stages for introducing a health perspective into urban projects, and extract avenues to be explored when adapting HIAs applied to urban planning in France. Using a qualitative multiple case study design, an analysis framework was built to compare several aspects of the four HIAs and made it possible to highlight three pathways for adapting HIA to the urban planning sector: the schedule, links between the EIA and HIA, and the complementarity of the initiatives to involve residents. Legal measures enable a point of contact that brings health institutions and cities closer together. HIA is yet another tool that public authorities now have at their fingertips to work together in strengthening democracy and in reducing social, geographical and environmental health inequalities. More research must be undertaken to develop an understanding of the practice-related context; to judge HIA's capacity to draw on existing approaches in different fields; and to explore the different avenues leading to increased health, wellbeing and equity.

Participatory health impact assessment used to support decision-making in waste management planning: A replicable experience from Italy

The lack of participatory tools in Health Impact Assessment (HIA) to support decision-makers is a critical factor that negatively affects the impacts of waste policies. This study describes the participatory HIA used in deciding on the possible doubling of the municipal solid waste incinerating plant located near the city of Arezzo, Italy. Within the framework of the new waste management plan, a methodology for the democratic participation of stakeholders was designed adopting the Local Agenda 21 methodology. Communication and participation events with the stakeholders were set up from the plan's development to its implementation. Eleven different categories of stakeholders including individual citizens were involved in 21 local events, reaching over 500 participants in three years. Actions were performed to build the commitment and ownership of the local administrators. Then, together with the environment and health agencies and a representative from the local committees, the local administrators collaborated with scientists and technicians in the knowledge-building and scoping stages. Focus groups of voluntary citizens worked together with the researchers to provide qualitative and quantitative evidence in the assessment stage. Periodic public forums were held to discuss processes, methods and findings. The local government authority considered the HIA results in the final decision and a new waste strategy was adopted both in the short term (increased curbside collection, waste sustainability program) and in the long term (limited repowering of the incinerator, new targets for separate collection). In conclusion, an effective participatory HIA was carried out at the municipal level to support decision makers in the waste management plan. The HIA21 study contributed to evidence-based decisions and to make a broadly participatory experience. The authors are confident that these achievements may improve the governance of the waste cycle and the trust in the public administration.

A health equity impact assessment umbrella program (AAPRISS) to tackle social inequalities in health: program description

Background:

The failure to simultaneously address two objectives (increasing the average health of the population and reducing health inequalities) may have led to what has been observed in France so far: an overall decrease in mortality and increase in inequality.

Objective:

The Apprendre et Agir pour Réduire les Inégalités Sociales de Santé (AAPRISS) methodology is to analyze and modify interventions that are already underway in terms of their potential impact on health inequalities. It relies on partnership between researchers and actors in the health field, as well as policy makers. In this paper, we describe the program and discuss its feasibility and acceptability.

Methods:

This program is not a single intervention, but a process aiming at assessing and reshaping existing health programs, therefore acting as a kind of meta-intervention. The program develops scientific and methodological support stemming from co-construction methods aimed at increasing equity within the programs. Stakeholders from prevention policy-making and the health care system, as well as researchers, collaborate in defining interventions, monitoring their progress, and choosing indicators, methods and evaluation procedures. The target population is mainly the population of the greater Toulouse area. The steps of the process are described: (1) establishment of AAPRISS governance and partnerships; (2) inclusion of projects; and (3) the projects’ process.

Discussion:

Many partners have rallied around this program, which has been shown to be feasible and acceptable by partners and health actors. A major challenge is understanding each partner’s expectations in terms of temporality of interventions, expected outcomes, assessment methods and indicators. Analyzing the projects has been quite feasible, and some modifications have been implemented in them in order to take inequalities in health into account.

Effectiveness of Health Impact Assessments: A Synthesis of Data From Five Impact Evaluation Reports

Introduction

Since the 1990s, the use of health impact assessments (HIAs) has grown for considering the potential health impacts of proposed policies, plans, programs, and projects in various sectors. Evaluation of HIA impacts is needed for understanding the value of HIAs, improving the methods involved in HIAs, and potentially expanding their application. Impact evaluations examine whether HIAs affect decisions and lead to other effects.

Methods

I reviewed HIA impact evaluations identified by literature review and professional networking. I abstracted and synthesized data on key findings, success factors, and challenges from 5 large evaluations conducted in the United States, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand and published from 2006 through 2015. These studies analyzed impacts of approximately 200 individual HIAs.

Results

Major impacts of HIAs were directly influencing some decisions, improving collaboration among stakeholders, increasing awareness of health issues among decision makers, and giving community members a stronger voice in local decisions. Factors that contributed to successful HIAs included engaging stakeholders, timeliness, policy and systems support for conducting HIAs, having people with appropriate skills on the HIA team, obtaining the support of decision makers, and providing clearly articulated, feasible recommendations. Challenges that may have reduced HIA success were poor timeliness, underestimation of time and resources needed, difficulty in accessing relevant data, use of jargon in HIA reports, difficulty in involving decision makers in the HIA process, and absence of a requirement to conduct HIAs.

Conclusion

HIAs can be useful to promote health and mitigate adverse impacts of decisions made outside of the health sector. Stakeholder interactions and community engagement may be as important as direct impacts of HIAs. Multiple factors are required for HIA success. Further work could strengthen the role of HIAs in promoting equity, examine HIA impacts in specific sectors, and document the role of HIAs in a “health in all policies” approach.

Rapid Assessment of Environmental Health Impacts for Policy Support: The Example of Road Transport in New Zealand

An integrated environmental health impact assessment of road transport in New Zealand was carried out, using a rapid assessment. The disease and injury burden was assessed from traffic-related accidents, air pollution, noise and physical (in)activity, and impacts attributed back to modal source. In total, road transport was found to be responsible for 650 deaths in 2012 (2.1% of annual mortality): 308 from traffic accidents, 283 as a result of air pollution, and 59 from noise. Together with morbidity, these represent a total burden of disease of 26,610 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). An estimated 40 deaths and 1874 DALYs were avoided through active transport. Cars are responsible for about 52% of attributable deaths, but heavy goods vehicles (6% of vehicle kilometres travelled, vkt) accounted for 21% of deaths. Motorcycles (1 per cent of vkt) are implicated in nearly 8% of deaths. Overall, impacts of traffic-related air pollution and noise are low compared to other developed countries, but road accident rates are high. Results highlight the need for policies targeted at road accidents, and especially at heavy goods vehicles and motorcycles, along with more general action to reduce the reliance on private road transport. The study also provides a framework for national indicator development.

Health impact metrics for air pollution management strategies

Health impact assessments (HIAs) inform policy and decision making by providing information regarding future health concerns, and quantitative HIAs now are being used for local and urban-scale projects. HIA results can be expressed using a variety of metrics that differ in meaningful ways, and guidance is lacking with respect to best practices for the development and use of HIA metrics. This study reviews HIA metrics pertaining to air quality management and presents evaluative criteria for their selection and use. These are illustrated in a case study where PM2.5 concentrations are lowered from 10 to 8μg/m(3) in an urban area of 1.8 million people. Health impact functions are used to estimate the number of premature deaths, unscheduled hospitalizations and other morbidity outcomes. The most common metric in recent quantitative HIAs has been the number of cases of adverse outcomes avoided. Other metrics include time-based measures, e.g., disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), monetized impacts, functional-unit based measures, e.g., benefits per ton of emissions reduced, and other economic indicators, e.g., cost-benefit ratios. These metrics are evaluated by considering their comprehensiveness, the spatial and temporal resolution of the analysis, how equity considerations are facilitated, and the analysis and presentation of uncertainty. In the case study, the greatest number of avoided cases occurs for low severity morbidity outcomes, e.g., asthma exacerbations (n=28,000) and minor-restricted activity days (n=37,000); while DALYs and monetized impacts are driven by the severity, duration and value assigned to a relatively low number of premature deaths (n=190 to 230 per year). The selection of appropriate metrics depends on the problem context and boundaries, the severity of impacts, and community values regarding health. The number of avoided cases provides an estimate of the number of people affected, and monetized impacts facilitate additional economic analyses useful to policy analysis. DALYs are commonly used as an aggregate measure of health impacts and can be used to compare impacts across studies. Benefits per ton metrics may be appropriate when changes in emissions rates can be estimated. To address community concerns and HIA objectives, a combination of metrics is suggested.

What makes health impact assessments successful? Factors contributing to effectiveness in Australia and New Zealand

BACKGROUND

While many guidelines explain how to conduct Health Impact Assessments (HIAs), less is known about the factors that determine the extent to which HIAs affect health considerations in the decision making process. We investigated which factors are associated with increased or reduced effectiveness of HIAs in changing decisions and in the implementation of policies, programs or projects. This study builds on and tests the Harris and Harris-Roxas' conceptual framework for evaluating HIA effectiveness, which emphasises context, process and output as key domains.

METHODS

We reviewed 55 HIA reports in Australia and New Zealand from 2005 to 2009 and conducted surveys and interviews for 48 of these HIAs. Eleven detailed case studies were undertaken using document review and stakeholder interviews. Case study participants were selected through purposeful and snowball sampling. The data were analysed by thematic content analysis. Findings were synthesised and mapped against the conceptual framework. A stakeholder forum was utilised to test face validity and practical adequacy of the findings.

RESULTS

We found that some features of HIA are essential, such as the stepwise but flexible process, and evidence based approach. Non-essential features that can enhance the impact of HIAs include capacity and experience; 'right person right level'; involvement of decision-makers and communities; and relationships and partnerships. There are contextual factors outside of HIA such as fit with planning and decision making context, broader global context and unanticipated events, and shared values and goals that may influence a HIA. Crosscutting factors include proactive positioning, and time and timeliness. These all operate within complex open systems, involving multiple decision-makers, levels of decision-making, and points of influence. The Harris and Harris-Roxas framework was generally supported.

CONCLUSION

We have confirmed previously identified factors influencing effectiveness of HIA and identified new factors such as proactive positioning. Our findings challenge some presumptions about 'right' timing for HIA and the rationality and linearity of decision-making processes. The influence of right timing on decision making needs to be seen within the context of other factors such as proactive positioning. This research can help HIA practitioners and researchers understand and identify what can be enhanced within the HIA process. Practitioners can adapt the flexible HIA process to accommodate the external contextual factors identified in this report.

Proposing a framework for Health Impact Assessment in Iran

Background

Health impact assessments (HIA) of policies and projects are conducted differently in different contexts although there has been less HIA research to date in non-western countries. Global HIA research has however suggested that the technical conduct of HIAs is tied to broader conditions and influences to do with decision making and policy development.

This study was conducted to develop a conceptual framework for progressing HIA in Iran including all factors influencing HIA planning and practice.

Methods

A comprehensive review of the international HIA literature identified core characteristics and principles. Then key informant interviews (n = 14) identified Iranian perspectives about factors influencing HIAs practice. These two stages resulted in a conceptual framework for HIA planning and practice including influencing factors and HIA content that was confirmed by our participants using e-Delphi technique.

Results

91 HIA characteristics were organized into 20 categories. The interviews showed that four core concepts i.e. context, actors, HIA principles and policies and HIA capacities influence HIA practice in Iran. Comprehensive content of HIA considering all health dimensions and health determinants, assessing health inequalities, appropriate HIA type, quantification and participation is formed under influence of the above mentioned four factors. The study also demonstrated need to redefine the HIA principles and make decision about integration of HIA in Environmental Impact Assessment and also about the level of HIA before implementing HIA. The e-Delphi resulted in expert consensus on the variables, concepts, and their relations in proposed framework.

Conclusions

Progressing HIA practice in Iran is perceived locally as subject to similar contextual conditions to those identified in the international literature. Further we have demonstrated the utility of mixed methods to progress HIA implementation in differing country contexts.

An evaluation of health impact assessments in the United States, 2011-2014

Introduction

The Center for Community Health and Evaluation conducted a 3-year evaluation to assess results of health impact assessments (HIAs) in the United States and to identify elements critical for their success.

Methods

The study used a retrospective, mixed-methods comparative case study design, including a literature review; site visits; interviews with investigators, stakeholders, and decision makers for 23 HIAs in 16 states that were completed from 2005 through 2013; and a Web-based survey of 144 HIA practitioners.

Results

Analysis of interviews with decision makers suggests HIAs can directly influence decisions in nonhealth-related sectors. HIAs may also influence changes beyond the decision target, build consensus and relationships among decision makers and their constituents, and give community members a stronger voice in decisions that affect them. Factors that may increase HIA success include care in choosing a project or policy to be examined’ selecting an appropriate team to conduct the HIA; engaging stakeholders and decision makers throughout the process; crafting clear, actionable recommendations; delivering timely, compelling messages to appropriate audiences; and using multiple dissemination methods. Challenges to successful HIAs include underestimating the level of effort required, political changes during the conduct of the HIA, accessing relevant local data, engaging vulnerable populations, and following up on recommendations.

Conclusion

Results of this study suggest HIAs are a useful tool to promote public health because they can influence decisions in nonhealth-related sectors, strengthen cross-sector collaborations, and raise awareness of health issues among decision makers.

Healthy Cities: Old and New Solutions

Cities have had historically higher mortality and morbidity rates than rural areas. These spiked dramatically after the Industrial Revolution, which led to the first health of cities movement that stimulated the adoption of new public health measures to improve the built-environment in the developed countries. Together with such additional factors as increasing prosperity, hygiene and especially medical advances, the old health disadvantages of cities was reversed. But a new set of medical challenges threatening to reverse previous progress has emerged. These include such problems as bacterial resistances to many of the drugs that reduced communicative diseases, to the effects of indoor living and aging, all of which require urgent attention. In addition, a review of the various health determinants that contribute to ill-health shows that since many of these factors are not within the prevue of current medical practice, they must be addressed if the health and well-being of people in cities are to be improved. A series of other problems that were previously overlooked are being tackled by the new Healthy Cities movement, such as the need for more political and citizen involvement in planning and delivering health care, better ways of promoting health rather than just curing ill-health with a new emphasis on wellness, as well as more effective measures to reduce the persistent pockets of ill-health in many cities.

Health Impact Assessment practice and potential for integration within Environmental Impact and Strategic Environmental Assessments in Italy

Avoiding or minimizing potential environmental impact is the driving idea behind protecting a population's health via Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs). However, both are often carried out without any systematic approach. This paper describes the findings of a review of HIA, EIA andSEA experiences carried out by the authors, who act as institutional competent subjects at the national and regional levels in Italy. The analysis of how health is tackled in EIA and SEA procedures could support the definition of a protocol for the integration of HIA with EIA and SEA. Although EIA and SEA approaches include the aim of protecting health,significant technical and methodological gaps are present when assessing health systematically, and their basic principles regarding assessment are unsatisfactory for promoting and addressing healthcare concepts stated by the WHO. HIA is still poorly integrated into the decision-making process, screening and monitoring phases are only occasionally implemented, and operational details are not well-defined. The collaborative approach of institutions involved in environment and health is a core element in a systematic advancement toward supporting effective decisions and effective protection ofthe environment and health. At the Italian national level, the definition of guidelines and tools for HIA, also in relation with EIA and SEA, is of great interest.

Housing, health and master planning: rules of engagement

OBJECTIVES

Knowledge about health focussed policy collaboration to date has been either tactical or technical. This article focusses on both technical and tactical issues to describe the experience of cross-sectoral collaboration between health and housing stakeholders across the life of a housing master plan, including but not limited to a health impact assessment (HIA).

STUDY DESIGN

A single explanatory case study of collaboration on a master plan to regenerate a deprived housing estate in Western Sydney was developed to explain why and how the collaboration worked or did not work.

METHODS

Data collection included stakeholder interviews, document review, and reflections by the health team. Following a realist approach, data was analysed against established public policy theory dimensions.

RESULTS

Tactically we did not know what we were doing. Despite our technical knowledge and skills with health focussed processes, particularly HIA, we failed to appreciate complexities inherent in master planning. This limited our ability to provide information at the right points. Eventually however the HIA did provide substantive connections between the master plan and health. We use our analysis to develop technical and tactical rules of engagement for future cross-sectoral collaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

This case study from the field provides insight for future health focussed policy collaboration. We demonstrate the technical and tactical requirements for future intersectoral policy and planning collaborations, including HIAs, with the housing sector on master planning. The experience also suggested how HIAs can be conducted flexibly alongside policy development rather than at a specific point after a policy is drafted.

Health impact assessment in a network of European cities

The methodology of health impact assessment (HIA) was introduced as one of four core themes for Phase IV (2003-2008) of the World Health Organization European Healthy Cities Network (WHO-EHCN). Four objectives for HIA were set at the beginning of the phase. We report on the results of the evaluation of introducing and implementing this methodology in cities from countries across Europe with widely differing economies and sociopolitical contexts. Two main sources of data were used: a general questionnaire designed for the Phase IV evaluation and the annual reporting template for 2007-2008. Sources of bias included the proportion of non-responders and the requirement to communicate in English. Main barriers to the introduction and implementation of HIA were a lack of skill, knowledge and experience of HIA, the newness of the concept, the lack of a legal basis for implementation and a lack of political support. Main facilitating factors were political support, training in HIA, collaboration with an academic/public health institution or local health agency, a pre-existing culture of intersectoral working, a supportive national policy context, access to WHO materials about or expertise in HIA and membership of the WHO-EHCN, HIA Sub-Network or a National Network. The majority of respondents did not feel that they had had the resources, knowledge or experience to achieve all of the objectives set for HIA in Phase IV. The cities that appear to have been most successful at introducing and implementing HIA had pre-existing experience of HIA, came from a country with a history of applying HIA, were HIA Sub-Network members or had made a commitment to implementing HIA during successive years of Phase IV. Although HIA was recognised as an important component of Healthy Cities' work, the experience in the WHO-EHCN underscores the need for political buy-in, capacity building and adequate resourcing for the introduction and implementation of HIA to be successful.

Motivators and barriers to incorporating climate change-related health risks in environmental health impact assessment

Climate change presents risks to health that must be addressed by both decision-makers and public health researchers. Within the application of Environmental Health Impact Assessment (EHIA), there have been few attempts to incorporate climate change-related health risks as an input to the framework. This study used a focus group design to examine the perceptions of government, industry and academic specialists about the suitability of assessing the health consequences of climate change within an EHIA framework. Practitioners expressed concern over a number of factors relating to the current EHIA methodology and the inclusion of climate change-related health risks. These concerns related to the broad scope of issues that would need to be considered, problems with identifying appropriate health indicators, the lack of relevant qualitative information that is currently incorporated in assessment and persistent issues surrounding stakeholder participation. It was suggested that improvements are needed in data collection processes, particularly in terms of adequate communication between environmental and health practitioners. Concerns were raised surrounding data privacy and usage, and how these could impact on the assessment process. These findings may provide guidance for government and industry bodies to improve the assessment of climate change-related health risks.

The essential elements of health impact assessment and healthy public policy: a qualitative study of practitioner perspectives

OBJECTIVES

This study uses critical realist methodology to identify the essential and contingent elements of Health Impact Assessment (HIA) and Healthy Public Policy (HPP) as operationalised by practitioners.

DESIGN

Data collection-qualitative interviews and a workshop were conducted with HIA and HPP practitioners working in differing contexts.

DATA ANALYSIS

Critical realist analytical questions identified the essential elements of HIA and HPP, the relationship between them, and the influences of public policy and other contingencies on the practice of both.

PARTICIPANTS

Nine interviews were conducted with purposively sampled participants working in Europe, USA and Australasia. 17 self-selected participants who worked in Europe, South East Asia and Australasia attended the workshop.

RESULTS

The results clarify that HIA and HPP are different but mutually supporting. HIA has four characteristics: assessing a policy proposal to predict population health and equity impacts, a structured process for stakeholder dialogue, making recommendations and flexibly adapting to the policy process. HPP has four characteristics: concern with a broad definition of health, designing policy to improve people's health and reduce health inequities, intersectoral collaboration and influencing the policy cycle from inception to completion. HIA brings to HPP prediction about a policy's broad health impacts, and a structured space for intersectoral engagement, but is one approach within a broader suite of HPP activities. Five features of public policy and seven contingent influences on HIA and HPP practice are identified.

CONCLUSIONS

This study clarifies the core attributes of HIA and HPP as separate yet overlapping while subject to wider influences. This provides the necessary common language to describe the application of both and avoid conflated expectations of either. The findings present the conceptual importance of public policy and the institutional role of public health as distinct and important influences on the practice of HIA and HPP.

[Health impact assessment of the San Fernando street renewal project in Alcalá de Guadaíra (Seville, Spain)]

OBJECTIVES

This study describes the design and implementation of a health impact assessment (HIA) conducted in 2010 of the regeneration project of San Fernando Street, the main avenue crossing the San Miguel-El Castillo neighborhood in Alcala de Guadaíra (Seville, Spain). This project is part of the wider URBAN Plan aimed at the social, urban and economic regeneration of the city's historic center.

METHODS

This experience followed the standard HIA stages and procedures. The review of published evidence was complemented with new qualitative information gathered by means of a participative workshop with the local population and interviews with social and health workers involved in the neighborhood.

RESULTS

During the building stage of the project, the adverse impacts were related to a worsening of the air quality, increased noise pollution, mobility restrictions and a higher risk of accidents, particularly among older or disabled people. Once the building stage was finished, the health benefits were associated with significant improvements in physical accessibility and the population's access to health services and other goods and services. Other positive effects were the enhanced safety and attractiveness of the neighborhood and the new opportunities for socializing, social cohesion and increasing the community's self-esteem.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first HIA experience in Andalusia whose results have been integrated into a formal cycle of decision making in the local community. This experience has provided new evidence of the potential of HIA and its applicability and acceptance at the municipal level and has has also facilitated a learning process and the piloting of new methods and tools associated with the HIA process.

Page Avenue health impact assessment: building on diverse partnerships and evidence to promote a healthy community

The Page Avenue health impact assessment (HIA) was focused on a redevelopment in Missouri. This case study describes a comprehensive HIA led by an interdisciplinary academic team with community partners, as well as compliance with North American HIA Practice Standards. Some of the key lessons learned included: (1) interdisciplinary teams are valuable but they require flexibility and organization; (2) engaging community stakeholders and decision-makers prior to, during, and following the HIA is critical to a successful HIA; and (3) HIA teams should not be too closely affiliated with decision-makers. It is hoped that this case study will inform future HIAs.

A rapid equity focused health impact assessment of a policy implementation plan: An Australian case study and impact evaluation

BACKGROUND

Equity focused health impact assessments (EFHIAs), or health equity impact assessments, are being increasingly promoted internationally as a mechanism for enhancing the consideration of health equity in the development of policies, programs and projects. Despite this there are relatively few examples of examples of completed EFHIAs available. This paper presents a case study of a rapid EFHIA that was conducted in Australia on a health promotion policy implementation plan. It briefly describes the process and findings of the EFHIA and evaluates the impact on decision-making and implementation.

METHODS

The rapid EFHIA was undertaken in four days, drawing on an expert panel and limited review of the literature. A process evaluation was undertaken by email one month after the EFHIA was completed. An impact evaluation was undertaken two years later based on five semi-structured interviews with members of the EFHIA working group and policy officers and managers responsible for implementing the plan. A cost estimation was conducted by the EFHIA working group.

FINDINGS

The EFHIA made both general and specific recommendations about how the health equity impacts of the policy implementation plan could be improved. The impact evaluation identified changes to development and implementation that occurred as a result of the EFHIA, though there was disagreement about the extent to which changes could be attributed solely to the EFHIA. Those responsible considered the recommendations of the EFHIA in the next versions of their ABHI implementation plans. Factors that influenced the impact of the EFHIA included consolidating understandings of equity, enabling discussion of alternatives, and differing understandings of the purpose of the EFHIA. The EFHIA cost US$4,036 to undertake.

CONCLUSIONS

This EFHIA was conducted in a short timeframe using relatively few resources. It had some reported impacts on the development of the implementation plan and enhanced overall consideration of health equity. This case highlights some of the factors and preconditions that may maximise the impact of future EFHIAs on decision-making and implementation.

Which new approaches to tackling neglected tropical diseases show promise?

This PLoS Medicine Debate examines the different approaches that can be taken to tackle neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). Some commentators, like Jerry Spiegel and colleagues from the University of British Columbia, feel there has been too much focus on the biomedical mechanisms and drug development for NTDs, at the expense of attention to the social determinants of disease. Burton Singer argues that this represents another example of the inappropriate "overmedicalization" of contemporary tropical disease control. Peter Hotez and colleagues, in contrast, argue that the best return on investment will continue to be mass drug administration for NTDs.

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.

Process and impact evaluation of the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Health Impact Assessment

Background

despite health impact assessment (HIA) being increasingly widely used internationally, fundamental questions about its impact on decision-making, implementation and practices remain. In 2005 a collaboration between public health and local government authorities performed an HIA on the Christchurch Urban Development Strategy Options paper in New Zealand. The findings of this were incorporated into the Greater Christchurch Urban Development Strategy;

Methods

using multiple qualitative methodologies including key informant interviews, focus groups and questionnaires, this study performs process and impact evaluations of the Christchurch HIA including evaluation of costs and resource use;

Results

the evaluation found that the HIA had demonstrable direct impacts on planning and implementation of the final Urban Development Strategy as well as indirect impacts on understandings and ways of working within and between organisations. It also points out future directions and ways of working in this successful collaboration between public health and local government authorities. It summarises the modest resource use and discusses the important role HIA can play in urban planning with intersectoral collaboration and enhanced relationships as both catalysts and outcomes of the HIA process;

Conclusion

as one of the few evaluations of HIA that have been published to date, this paper makes a substantial contribution to the literature on the impact, utility and effectiveness of HIA.

Healthy public policy--is health impact assessment the cornerstone?

The 8th International Health Impact Assessment Conference, entitled 'Healthy public policy--is health impact assessment the cornerstone?', was hosted by the Institute of Public Health in Ireland (IPH). At the event, IPH sponsored a keynote speech to set the context of the conference and outline the importance of healthy public policy. This article presents an overview of healthy public policy and the barriers to its adoption in policy-making. Health impact assessment is one such tool to overcome the barriers, and the authors recommend the methodology as the cornerstone to healthy public policy.

A framework for integrated environmental health impact assessment of systemic risks

Traditional methods of risk assessment have provided good service in support of policy, mainly in relation to standard setting and regulation of hazardous chemicals or practices. In recent years, however, it has become apparent that many of the risks facing society are systemic in nature - complex risks, set within wider social, economic and environmental contexts. Reflecting this, policy-making too has become more wide-ranging in scope, more collaborative and more precautionary in approach. In order to inform such policies, more integrated methods of assessment are needed. Based on work undertaken in two large EU-funded projects (INTARESE and HEIMTSA), this paper reviews the range of approaches to assessment now in used, proposes a framework for integrated environmental health impact assessment (both as a basis for bringing together and choosing between different methods of assessment, and extending these to more complex problems), and discusses some of the challenges involved in conducting integrated assessments to support policy. Integrated environmental health impact assessment is defined as a means of assessing health-related problems deriving from the environment, and health-related impacts of policies and other interventions that affect the environment, in ways that take account of the complexities, interdependencies and uncertainties of the real world. As such, it depends heavily on how issues are selected and framed, and implies the involvement of stakeholders both in issue-framing and design of the assessment, and to help interpret and evaluate the results. It is also a comparative process, which involves evaluating and comparing different scenarios. It consequently requires the ability to model the way in which the influences of exogenous factors, such as policies or other interventions, feed through the environment to affect health. Major challenges thus arise. Chief amongst these are the difficulties in ensuring effective stakeholder participation, in dealing with the multicausal and non-linear nature of many of the relationships between environment and health, and in taking account of adaptive and behavioural changes that characterise the systems concerned.