STUDY AIM: The aim of this project is to identify from a range of sources the factors associated with the success of a health impact assessment (HIA) in integrating health considerations into the final decision and implementation of a planned policy, programme, or project. DESIGN: Three methods were adopted: (a) a review of HIA case studies; (b) a review of commentaries, reviews and discussion papers relating to HIA and decision making; and (c) an email survey of a purposive sample of HIA academics, HIA practitioners, and policymakers. Information was captured on the following characteristics: information on the year undertaken; geopolitical level; setting; sector; HIA type; methods and techniques used; identification of assessors. MAIN RESULTS: Two groups of factors were identified relating to the decision making environment and to the technical conduct of the HIA. With regard to the environment, striking a balance between decision maker ownership and HIA credibility; organisational, statutory and policy commitment to HIA, and the provision of realistic, non-controversial recommendations were cited as enablers to the integration of HIA findings into the decision making process. Barriers included a lack of knowledge of the policymaking environment by those conducting HIA. Regarding factors relating to the conduct of the HIA: use of a consistent methodological approach; inclusion of empirical evidence on health impacts; timing of the HIA congruent with the decision making process; involvement of expert HIA assessors; and shaping of recommendations to reflect organisational priorities were cited as enablers while lack of a standardised methodology; lack of resources and use of jargon were cited as barriers. CONCLUSIONS: The findings emphasise the importance of considering the politico-administrative environment in which HIA operates. The extent to which HIA fits the requirements of organisations and decision makers may be as important as the technical methods adopted to undertake it.
STUDY AIM: The aim of this project is to identify from a range of sources the factors associated with the success of a health impact assessment (HIA) in integrating health considerations into the final decision and implementation of a planned policy, programme, or project. DESIGN: Three methods were adopted: (a) a review of HIA case studies; (b) a review of commentaries, reviews and discussion papers relating to HIA and decision making; and (c) an email survey of a purposive sample of HIA academics, HIA practitioners, and policymakers. Information was captured on the following characteristics: information on the year undertaken; geopolitical level; setting; sector; HIA type; methods and techniques used; identification of assessors. MAIN RESULTS: Two groups of factors were identified relating to the decision making environment and to the technical conduct of the HIA. With regard to the environment, striking a balance between decision maker ownership and HIA credibility; organisational, statutory and policy commitment to HIA, and the provision of realistic, non-controversial recommendations were cited as enablers to the integration of HIA findings into the decision making process. Barriers included a lack of knowledge of the policymaking environment by those conducting HIA. Regarding factors relating to the conduct of the HIA: use of a consistent methodological approach; inclusion of empirical evidence on health impacts; timing of the HIA congruent with the decision making process; involvement of expert HIA assessors; and shaping of recommendations to reflect organisational priorities were cited as enablers while lack of a standardised methodology; lack of resources and use of jargon were cited as barriers. CONCLUSIONS: The findings emphasise the importance of considering the politico-administrative environment in which HIA operates. The extent to which HIA fits the requirements of organisations and decision makers may be as important as the technical methods adopted to undertake it.
Authors: Karen Lock; Mojca Gabrijelcic-Blenkus; Marco Martuzzi; Peter Otorepec; Paul Wallace; Carlos Dora; Aileen Robertson; Jozica Maucec Zakotnic Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2003-07-25 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Mark Petticrew; Margaret Whitehead; Sally J Macintyre; Hilary Graham; Matt Egan Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Margaret Whitehead; Mark Petticrew; Hilary Graham; Sally J Macintyre; Clare Bambra; Matt Egan Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Andrew L Dannenberg; Rajiv Bhatia; Brian L Cole; Carlos Dora; Jonathan E Fielding; Katherine Kraft; Diane McClymont-Peace; Jennifer Mindell; Chinwe Onyekere; James A Roberts; Catherine L Ross; Candace D Rutt; Alex Scott-Samuel; Hugh H Tilson Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2005-12-27 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Jerry M Spiegel; Shafik Dharamsi; Kishor M Wasan; Annalee Yassi; Burton Singer; Peter J Hotez; Christy Hanson; Donald A P Bundy Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2010-05-18 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Phil Symonds; James Milner; Nahid Mohajeri; Juliette Aplin; Joanna Hale; Simon J Lloyd; Henry Fremont; Sam Younkin; Clive Shrubsole; Lawrie Robertson; Jonathon Taylor; Nici Zimmermann; Paul Wilkinson; Mike Davies Journal: Wellcome Open Res Date: 2021-05-18