J S Mindell1, A Boltong, I Forde. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 6BT, UK. j.mindell@ucl.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Consideration of health impacts of non-health sector policies has been encouraged in many countries, with health impact assessment (HIA) increasingly used worldwide for this purpose. HIA aims to assess the potential impacts of a proposal and make recommendations to improve the potential health outcomes and minimize inequalities. Although many of the same techniques can be used, such as community consultation, engagement or profiling, HIA differs from other community health approaches in its starting point, purpose and relationship to interventions. Many frameworks have been produced to aid practitioners in conducting HIA. OBJECTIVE: To review the many HIA frameworks in a systematic and comparative way. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHOD: The literature was searched to identify published frameworks giving sufficient guidance for those with the necessary skills to be able to undertake an HIA. RESULTS: Approaches to HIA reflect their origins, particularly those derived from Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Early HIA resources tended to use a biomedical model of health and examine projects. Later developments were designed for use with policy proposals, and tended to use a socio-economic or environmental model of health. There are more similarities than differences in approaches to HIA, with convergence over time, such as the distinction between 'narrow' and 'broad' focus HIA disappearing. Consideration of health disparities is integral to most HIA frameworks but not universal. A few resources focus solely on inequalities. The extent of community participation advocated varies considerably. CONCLUSION: It is important to select an HIA framework designed for a comparable context, level of proposal and available resources.
BACKGROUND: Consideration of health impacts of non-health sector policies has been encouraged in many countries, with health impact assessment (HIA) increasingly used worldwide for this purpose. HIA aims to assess the potential impacts of a proposal and make recommendations to improve the potential health outcomes and minimize inequalities. Although many of the same techniques can be used, such as community consultation, engagement or profiling, HIA differs from other community health approaches in its starting point, purpose and relationship to interventions. Many frameworks have been produced to aid practitioners in conducting HIA. OBJECTIVE: To review the many HIA frameworks in a systematic and comparative way. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHOD: The literature was searched to identify published frameworks giving sufficient guidance for those with the necessary skills to be able to undertake an HIA. RESULTS: Approaches to HIA reflect their origins, particularly those derived from Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Early HIA resources tended to use a biomedical model of health and examine projects. Later developments were designed for use with policy proposals, and tended to use a socio-economic or environmental model of health. There are more similarities than differences in approaches to HIA, with convergence over time, such as the distinction between 'narrow' and 'broad' focus HIA disappearing. Consideration of health disparities is integral to most HIA frameworks but not universal. A few resources focus solely on inequalities. The extent of community participation advocated varies considerably. CONCLUSION: It is important to select an HIA framework designed for a comparable context, level of proposal and available resources.
Authors: Jennifer Mindell; Jane Biddulph; Lorraine Taylor; Karen Lock; Annette Boaz; Michael Joffe; Sarah Curtis Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2009-12-23 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Hendriek C Boshuizen; Stefan K Lhachimi; Pieter H M van Baal; Rudolf T Hoogenveen; Henriette A Smit; Johan P Mackenbach; Wilma J Nusselder Journal: Demography Date: 2012-11
Authors: Dietrich Plass; Henk Hilderink; Heli Lehtomäki; Simon Øverland; Terje A Eikemo; Taavi Lai; Vanessa Gorasso; Brecht Devleesschauwer Journal: Arch Public Health Date: 2022-05-27
Authors: Stefan K Lhachimi; Wilma J Nusselder; Henriette A Smit; Pieter van Baal; Paolo Baili; Kathleen Bennett; Esteve Fernández; Margarete C Kulik; Tim Lobstein; Joceline Pomerleau; Johan P Mackenbach; Hendriek C Boshuizen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-05-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nunzia Linzalone; Giorgio Assennato; Adele Ballarini; Ennio Cadum; Mario Cirillo; Liliana Cori; Francesca De Maio; Loredana Musmeci; Marinella Natali; Sabrina Rieti; Maria Eleonora Soggiu; Fabrizio Bianchi Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 3.390