The effectiveness of health impact assessment in influencing decision-making in Australia and New Zealand 2005-2009

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.

Health Equity Impact Assessment (HEIA) reporting tool: developing a checklist for policymakers

INTRODUCTION

Health Equity Impact Assessment (HEIA) is a decision support tool that shows users how a new program, policy, or innovation affects health equity in different population groups. Various HEIA reporting and dissemination tools are available, nevertheless, a practical standard tool to present the results of HEIA in an appropriate period to policymakers is lacking. This work reports the development of a tool (a checklist) for HEIA reporting at the decision-making level, aiming to promote the application of HEIA evidence for improving health equity.

METHODS

This is a mixed-method study that was carried out over four stages in 2022-2023: 1) identifying HEIA models, checklists, and reporting instruments; 2) development of the initial HEIA reporting checklist; 3) checklist validation; and 4) piloting the checklist. We also analyzed the Face, CVR, and CVI validity of the tool.

RESULTS

We developed the initial checklist through analysis of 53 included studies and the opinions of experts. The final checklist comprised five sections: policy introduction (eight subsections), managing the HEIA of policy (seven subsections), scope of the affected population (three subsections), HEIA results (seven subsections), and recommendations (three subsections).

CONCLUSION

Needs assessment, monitoring during implementation, health impact assessment, and other tools such as monitoring outcome reports, appraisals, and checklists are all methods for assessing health equity impact. Other equity-focused indicators, such as the equity lens and equity appraisal, may have slightly different goals than the HEIA. Similarly, the formats for presenting and publishing HEIA reports might vary, depending on the target population and the importance of the report.

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.

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.

Facilitators, Barriers and Views on the Role of Public Health Institutes in Promoting and Using Health Impact Assessment-An International Virtual Scoping Survey and Expert Interviews

Public health institutes have an important role in promoting and protecting the health and well-being of populations. A key focus of such institutes are the wider determinants of health, embracing the need to advocate for 'Health in All Policies' (HiAP). A valuable tool to support this is the health impact assessment. This study aims to support public health institutes to advocate more successfully for the use of health impact assessments and HiAP in order to promote and protect health, well-being and equity. During July 2021, a quantitative online survey was undertaken across international networks with 17 valid responses received. Semi-structured interviews were also administered with nine expert representatives and analysed thematically. In total, 64.7% (n = 11) of survey respondents were aware of health impact assessments and 47.1% (n = 8) currently conducted health impact assessments. It was noted that there are differing approaches to HIAs, with a need for a clear set of standards. Barriers to use included lack of knowledge, training and resources. Overall, 64.7% (n = 11) of survey respondents would like to do more to develop knowledge and capacity around health impact assessments. The results from this study can serve as a platform to help build knowledge, networks and expertise, to help support a 'Health in All Policies' approach and address inequalities which exist in all societies.

Assessing the health impacts of transnational corporations: a case study of Carlton and United Breweries in Australia

Background

The practices of transnational corporations (TNCs) affect population health through unhealthy products, shaping social determinants of health, or influencing the regulatory structures governing their activities. There has been limited research on community exposures to TNC policies and practices. The aim of this paper was to adapt existing Health Impact Assessment methods that were previously used for both a fast food and an extractives industry corporation in order to assess Carlton and United Breweries (CUB) operations within Australia. CUB is an Australian alcohol company owned by a large transnational corporation Asahi Group Holdings. Data identifying potential impacts were sourced through document analysis, including corporate literature; media analysis, and 12 semi-structured interviews. The data were mapped against a corporate health impact assessment framework which included CUB’s political and business practices; products and marketing; workforce, social, environmental and economic conditions; and consumers’ adverse health impacts. We also conducted an ecological study for estimating alcohol attributable fractions and burdens of death due to congestive heart disease, diabetes mellitus, stroke, breast cancer, bowel cancer and injury in Australia. Beer attributable fractions and deaths and CUB’s share were also estimated.

Results

We found both positive and adverse findings of the corporation’s operations across all domains. CUB engage in a range of business practices which benefit the community, including sustainability goals and corporate philanthropy, but also negative aspects including from taxation arrangements, marketing practices, and political donations and lobbying which are enabled by a neoliberal regulatory environment. We found adverse health impacts including from fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and violence and aggression which disproportionately affect Indigenous and other disadvantaged populations.

Conclusion

Our research indicates that studying a TNC in a rapidly changing global financialised capitalist economy in a world which is increasingly being managed by TNCs poses methodological and conceptual challenges. It highlights the need and opportunity for future research. The different methods revealed sufficient information to recognise that strong regulatory frameworks are needed to help to avoid or to mediate negative health impacts.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12992-022-00870-0.

Evaluating Racial/Ethnic Equity in Planning-Related U.S. Health Impact Assessments Involving Parks and Greenspaces: A Review

Problem research strategy and findings

Health impact assessment (HIA) reports are used by government agencies, other organizations, and stakeholders to evaluate potential health effects of plans/policies/projects. HIAs have the potential to promote anti-racist practices. We developed and used the Tool for the Racial/Ethnic Equity Evaluation of Health Impact Assessments (TREE-HIA) to score 50 U.S. HIA reports on planning-related projects/plans involving parks and greenspaces (2005-2020). More recent and more comprehensive HIA reports addressed racial/ethnic equity to a greater degree (e.g., median TREE-HIA scores: -1.3 in 2009-2012, 4.0 in 2017-2020, where higher scores indicate greater racial/equity considerations). Overall, HIA reports addressed racial/ethnic equity to a lesser degree than expected given the principal tenet of equity guiding HIAs and urban planning alike (42% had negative TREE-HIA scores indicating inadequate racial/ethnic equity consideration). However, the limited number and types of HIAs included in this study may affect generalization to all HIAs.

Takeaway for practice

HIAs incorporating racial/ethnic equity comprehensively throughout the HIA process will better enable urban planners, HIA practitioners, decision makers, and communities of color to work together to combat racist planning practices through the shared goals of addressing health disparities and equity. TREE-HIA provides professionals and researchers with a brief tool that can be used/adapted to guide and evaluate future HIAs for racial/ethnic equity considerations.

Heart-Focused Anxiety Among Trauma-Exposed Latinx Young Adults: Relations to General Depression, Suicidality, Anxious Arousal, and Social Anxiety

Rates of traumatic event exposure, posttraumatic stress (PTS), and co-occurring mental health symptoms and disorders are conditionally higher among Latinx individuals compared to other racial/ethnic populations. Importantly, Latinx persons are a heterogeneous population, and certain subgroups endorse higher rates of negative mental health outcomes than others, including Latinx young adults born in the USA. Yet, there is little understanding of individual difference factors among trauma-exposed US born Latinx young adults that may be involved in mental health burden among this group. The present investigation sought to evaluate the potential explanatory relevance of heart-focused anxiety as an individual difference factor regarding some of the most common co-occurring mental health problems among trauma-exposed populations. Specifically, we tested whether heart-focused anxiety was related to increased co-occurring anxious arousal symptoms, depression, social anxiety, and suicidality among 169 (84% female, M_age=23.15 years, SD=6.07) trauma-exposed Latinx young adults. Results indicated that heart-focused anxiety was a statistically significant predictor of general depression (ΔR² = .02, F(1, 161) = 4.25, p = .041), suicidality (ΔR² = .10, F(1, 161) = 21.49, p < .001), anxious arousal (ΔR² = .11, F(1, 161) = 27.31, p < .001), and social anxiety (ΔR² = .03, F(1, 161) = 7.93, p = .005). Overall, this work offers empirical evidence that individual differences in heart-focused anxiety are related to more severe co-occurring anxiety and depressive symptomatology among a particularly at risk Latinx segment of the Latinx population (non-immigrant Latinx young adults s with previous trauma history).

Health Impact Assessments of Health Sector Proposals: An Audit and Narrative Synthesis

BACKGROUND

Health impact assessment (HIA) is a tool used to assess the potential health impacts of proposed projects, programs, and policies. The extent of the use of HIAs conducted on health sector proposals, and what they focus on, is currently largely undocumented. This paper reviews HIAs conducted on health sector proposals, their characteristics and describes the settings in which they were conducted.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted, including peer-reviewed journals and grey literature utilizing keywords, synonyms, and subject headings relevant to HIA and the health sector. Eligibility criteria were independently applied to the identified works and data appraisal conducted using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist tool.

RESULTS

19 HIAs were identified and included in the review, including 13 rapid, three intermediate, and two comprehensive HIAs. The HIAs use was evident across a range of health service contexts, though all but one had been conducted in developed countries.

CONCLUSION

The use of HIAs in the health sector is limited. There were various benefits attributed to the HIAs analysed including and not limited to the allocation of resources, reducing inequalities, and identification of possible negative consequences of a project. There is an opportunity to improve the use and reporting of HIAs across health settings internationally to enhance the consideration of broader determinants of health, influence decision making, and use of evidence in health sector planning for the future.

The Built Environment and Health in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: a Review on Quantitative Health Impact Assessments

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Features and attributes of the built environment (BE) impact positively and negatively on health, especially in cities facing unprecedented urban population growth and mass motorization. A common approach to assess the health impacts of built environment is health impact assessment (HIA), but it is rarely used in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where urbanization rates are fastest. This article reviews selected HIA case studies from LMICs and reports the methods and tools used to support further implementation of quantitative HIAs in cities of LMICs.

RECENT FINDINGS

In total, 24 studies were reviewed across Algeria, Brazil, China, India, Iran, Kenya, Thailand, Turkey, and Mauritius. HIAs examine specific pathways through which the built environment acts: air pollution, noise, physical activity, and traffic injury. Few HIAs of BE addressed more than one exposure pathway at a time, and most studies focused on air pollution across the sectors of transport and energy. A wide number of tools were used to conduct exposure assessment, and different models were applied to assess health impacts of different exposures. Those HIAs rely on availability of local concentration data and often use models that have set exposure-response functions (ERFs). ERFs were not adapted to local populations except for HIAs conducted in China. HIAs of BE are being successfully conducted in LMICs with a variety of tools and datasets. Scaling and expanding quantitative health impact modeling in LMICs will require further study on data availability, adapted models/tools, low technical capacity, and low policy demand for evidence from modeling studies. As case studies with successful use of evidence from modeling emerge, the uptake of health impact modeling of BE is likely to increase in favor of people and planet.

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&#8217; appropriation and use of the information produced throughout the process.

METHODS

12&#160;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&#8217; 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&#8217; 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.

Tackling social inequalities in health: acceptability and feasibility of a systematic approach toward health impact assessment of urban projects

INTRODUCTION

The general objective of this research project was to explore the feasibility and acceptability of an original method intended to systematically identify urban planning projects whose potential impacts on health and social inequalities in health (SIH) would be most damaging. An approach based on a short meeting and a tool would help to discuss whether or not to engage in a more comprehensive health impact assessment.

METHODS

A tool was developed by the research team based on various tools reported in the literature and modified with urban planners. Meetings were organized for each development project with the volunteer planners, who were working on the projects selected. Reviews of six projects at different stages of design made it possible to assess the acceptability and feasibility of this approach to identify public health and social equity issues in health.

RESULTS

The process and the use of the tool were found to be feasible. The tool was easily understandable, adapted to the practices of planners and usable without real training other than a quick introduction to tool usage. It was also found to be acceptable. Despite an interest in the inclusion of SIH, the integration of the relationship between SIH and urban development was not easy for most of the urban planners.

CONCLUSION

This exploratory work suggests that a systematic approach to assessing the impact of urban projects on health and SIH is feasible and acceptable. Dealing with SIH was not found to be easy by the urban planners.

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.

The Elaboration of an Intersectoral Partnership to Perform Health Impact Assessment in Urban Planning: The Experience of Quebec City (Canada)

Health impact assessments (HIA) allow evaluation of urban interventions' potential effects on health and facilitate decision-making in the urban planning process. However, few municipalities have implemented this method in Canada. This paper presents the approach developed with partners, the process, and the outcomes of HIA implementation after seven years of interinstitutional collaborations in Quebec City (ten HIA). Using direct observation and meeting minutes, information includes: perceived role of each institution taking part in HIA beforehand, how the HIA process was implemented, if it was appreciated, and which outcomes were observed. The intersectoral interactions contributed to the development of a common language, which sped up the HIA process over time and fostered positive collaborations in unrelated projects. It was an effective tool to share concerns and responsibilities among independent institutions. This experience resulted in the creation of an informal group of stakeholders from four different institutions that perform HIA to this day in collaboration with researchers.

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.

Contribution analysis to analyze the effects of the health impact assessment at the local level: A case of urban revitalization

The health impact assessment (HIA) is a tool used to estimate the potential impact on health of non-health-related proposals prior to implementation. While it is increasingly used in Quebec, Canada, studies have not analyzed its medium-term impacts and potential long-term impacts. We conducted a contribution analysis using in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, as well as documents, observation and images related to HIA in order to analyze its impacts on the revitalization of road infrastructure, parks and green spaces, and residential housing. Our analysis not only reflects on the decision-making process through the adoption and implementation of HIA recommendations, but also on the link between actions implemented in the field and health outcomes.

[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 of Transportation Projects and Policies: Living Up to Aims of Advancing Population Health and Health Equity?

Health impact assessment (HIA) is a forward-looking, evidence-based tool used to inform stakeholders and policy makers about the potential health effects of proposed projects and policies and to identify options for maximizing potential health benefits and minimizing potential harm. This review examines how health equity, a core principle of health impact assessment (HIA), has been operationalized in HIAs conducted in the United States in one sector, transportation. Two perspectives on promoting health equity appear in the broader public health research literature; one aims at reducing disparities in health determinants and outcomes in affected populations, whereas the other focuses on facilitating community participation and self-determination. Variations in how these perspectives are applied in HIA informed our typology of five ways of addressing health equity in HIA. Transportation HIAs commonly included two of these—selecting vulnerable populations for the focus of the HIA and stakeholder engagement, seen in more than 70% of the 96 HIAs reviewed. Fewer than half of the HIAs assessed current health disparities or changes in their distribution. Only 15% of HIAs addressed equity by focusing on capabilities development or empowerment. Routinely assessing and reporting how an HIA aims to address health equity might better manage expectations and could make HIA practitioners and users more conscious of how an HIA can realistically be used to advance health equity.

A Practice-Grounded Approach for Evaluating Health in All Policies Initiatives in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To address the social determinants of health, an increasing number of public health practitioners are implementing Health in All Policies initiatives aimed at increasing cross-sectoral collaboration and integrating health considerations into decisions made by "nonhealth" sectors. Despite the growth in practice nationally and internationally, evaluation of Health in All Policies is a relatively new field. To help inform evaluation of Health in All Policies initiatives in the United States, this study sought to develop a practice-grounded approach, including a logic model and a set of potential indicators, which could be used to describe and assess Health in All Policies activities, outputs, and outcomes.

DESIGN

Methods included (a) a review of the literature on current Health in All Policies approaches, practices, and evaluations; and (b) consultation with experts with substantive knowledge in implementing or evaluating Health in All Policies initiatives. Feedback from experts was obtained through individual (n = 11) and group (n = 14) consultation.

RESULTS

The logic model depicts a range of potential inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes of Health in All Policies initiatives; example indicators for each component of the logic model are provided. Case studies from California, Washington, and Nashville highlight emerging examples of Health in All Policies evaluation and the ways in which local context and goals inform evaluation efforts.

CONCLUSION

The tools presented in this article synthesize concepts present in the emerging literature on Health in All Policies implementation and evaluation. Practitioners and researchers can use the tools to facilitate dialogue among stakeholders, clarify assumptions, identify how they will assess progress, and implement data-driven ways to improve their Health in All Policies work.

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.

L’évaluation d’impact sur la santé en Montérégie : un processus appuyé sur le courtage de connaissances

Le présent article fait état du modèle de soutien à la prise de décision appliqué à l’évaluation d’impact sur la santé (EIS) en Montérégie, au Canada. Pour répondre à la volonté de soutenir l’élaboration de politiques et projets municipaux favorables à la santé et fondés sur les données probantes, la Direction de santé publique a mis en œuvre une démarche d’EIS dont les fondements pratiques s’inspirent des expériences internationales en matière d’EIS et dont les assises théoriques reposent sur le partage et le courtage de connaissances. L’expérience montérégienne démontre que la stratégie de courtage de connaissances appliquées à l’EIS encourage un partage respectueux des responsabilités et rôles de chacune des parties prenantes et favorise l’utilisation des connaissances de santé publique dans la prise de décision municipale. Le courtage des connaissances permet de prendre en compte les enjeux locaux dans les analyses d’impact et dans les recommandations aux décideurs. En conclusion, il s’avère que l’implication des décideurs municipaux à la recherche de solutions favorables à la santé permet d’inscrire les données probantes à l’intérieur des processus décisionnels et d’observer leur utilisation à plusieurs niveaux. L’évaluation des premières expériences d’EIS révèle en effet que les connaissances partagées répondent à des besoins immédiats engendrant leur utilisation directe, contribuent à des changements de perception et de pratique à plus large échelle et font de la santé une valeur reconnue par les décideurs publics et promue auprès de leurs citoyens pour accroître l’acceptabilité des initiatives municipales.

Exploration of the functions of health impact assessment in real-world policymaking in the field of social health inequality: towards a conception of conceptual learning

With the implementation of health impact assessment (HIA)'s conceptual model into real-world policymaking, a number of fundamental issues arise concerning its decision-support function. Rooted in a rational vision of the decision-making process, focus regarding both conceptualisation and evaluation has been mainly on the function of instrumental policy-learning. However, in the field of social health inequalities, this function is strongly limited by the intrinsic 'wickedness' of the policy issue. Focusing almost exclusively on this instrumental function, the real influence HIA can have on policymaking in the longer term is underestimated and remains largely unexploited. Drawing insights from theoretical models developed in the field of political science and sociology, we explore the different decision-support functions HIA can fulfill and identify conceptual learning as potentially the most important. Accordingly, dominant focus on the technical engineering function, where knowledge is provided in order to 'rationalise' the policy process and to tackle 'tame' problems, should be complemented with an analysis of the conditions for conceptual learning, where knowledge introduces new information and perspectives and, as such, contributes in the longer term to a paradigm change.

Evaluation d’impact sur la santé et évaluation d’impact sur l’équité en santé : éventail de pratiques et questions de recherche

L’Evaluation d’Impact sur la Santé (EIS) se développe au niveau international et est encore au stade émergent en France. Elle vise à évaluer les effets positifs et négatifs potentiels d’un projet, d’un programme ou d’une politique sur la santé. L’objectif est de produire des recommandations en direction des décideurs, afin d’en maximiser les effets positifs et d’en diminuer les effets négatifs. L’EIS est un moyen particulièrement intéressant d’action sur les déterminants de la santé au-delà des comportements individuels et du système de santé. Les politiques de logement, de transport, de solidarité, économiques, etc. ont, en effet, des impacts souvent non prévus sur la santé. Au-delà des effets sur la santé, l’EIS doit aussi permettre d’apprécier la distribution de ces effets dans la population.

Si la préoccupation pour l’équité en santé est centrale dans l’EIS, elle reste cependant difficilement traduite en pratique. Face à cette difficulté, des démarches d’évaluation d’impact ont été développées pour renforcer la prise en compte de l’équité à chaque étape de l’EIS ou « Equity Focused Health Impact Assessment », ou prendre en compte les impacts sur les inégalités de santé de façon spécifique. Ainsi, l’Evaluation de l’Impact sur l’Equité en Santé (EIES) semble, par exemple, particulièrement intéressante pour évaluer l’impact sur les inégalités de projets dans le champ sanitaire.

L’EIS et l’EIES posent de nombreuses questions de recherche, notamment autour de la réunion, dans une même démarche, du politique, du citoyen et de l’expert. La participation des populations vulnérables potentiellement affectées par la politique évaluée est une valeur centrale de l’EIS, mais pose des questions d’acceptabilité sociale. La collaboration avec les décideurs politiques est également un enjeu majeur. Les difficultés méthodologiques, notamment de quantification des impacts, peuvent constituer des freins à la promotion de la démarche auprès des décideurs.

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.

Is health impact assessment useful in the context of trade negotiations? A case study of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement

OBJECTIVE

The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is a recently concluded free trade agreement involving Australia and 11 other Pacific-rim nations, which has the potential for far-reaching impacts on public health. A health impact assessment (HIA) was carried out during the negotiations to determine the potential future public health impact in Australia and to provide recommendations to mitigate potential harms. This paper explores the findings and outcomes of the HIA, and how this approach can be used to provide evidence for public health advocacy.

DESIGN

A modified version of the standard HIA process was followed. The HIA was led by technical experts in HIA, trade policy, and health policy, in collaboration with advocacy organisations concerned with the TPP and health. The HIA reviewed the provisions in leaked TPP text in order to determine their potential impact on future health policy. As part of this process, researchers developed policy scenarios in order to examine how TPP provisions may affect health policies and their subsequent impact to health for both the general and vulnerable populations. The four policy areas assessed were the cost of medicines, tobacco control, alcohol control and food labelling.

RESULTS

In all areas assessed, the HIA found that proposed TPP provisions were likely to adversely affect health. These provisions are also likely to more adversely affect the health of vulnerable populations.

CONCLUSIONS

The HIA produced relevant evidence that was useful in advocacy efforts by stakeholders, and engaging the public through various media platforms.

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.

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.

Investigating underlying principles to guide health impact assessment

BACKGROUND

Many countries conduct Health Impact Assessment (HIA) of their projects and policies to predict their positive and negative health impacts. In recent years many guides have been developed to inform HIA practice, largely reflecting local developments in HIA. These guides have often been designed for specific contexts and specific need, making the choice between guides difficult. The objective of the current study is to identify underlying principles in order to guide HIA practice in Iran.

METHODS

This study was conducted in three stages: 1) Studies comparing HIA guidelines were reviewed to identify criteria used for comparison seeking emphasized principles. 2) The HIA characteristics extracted from published papers were categorized in order to determine the principles that could guide HIA practice. 3) Finally, these principles were agreed by experts using nominal group technique.

RESULTS

The review of the studies comparing HIA guides demonstrated there are no clear comparison criteria for reviewing HIA guides and no study mentioned HIA principles. Investigating the HIA principles from peer-reviewed papers, we found 14 issues. These were, considering of general features in planning and conducting HIAs such as HIA stream, level, timing and type, considering of the wider socio-political and economic context, considering of economic, technical and legal aspects of HIA and capacities for HIA, rationality and comprehensiveness, using appropriate evidence, elaborating on HIA relation to other forms of Impact Assessment, considering of equity, and encouraging intersectoral and interdisciplinary cooperation, involvement of stakeholders and transparency as underlying principles to guide HIA practice. The results emphasize how critical these technical as well as tactical considerations are in the early scoping step of an HIA which plans the conduct of the HIA in reponse to local contextual issues.

CONCLUSION

Determining the principles of HIA from peer-reviewed papers provides an opportunity for guiding HIA practice comprehensively. It seems to be feasible to develop a universal guide that covers all principles required.

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.