Cited by 6Environmental and Social Impact AssessmentsPublic Health and Environmental IssuesPublic Health and Social Inequalities

Perception survey on the relevance of main categories of health determinants for conducting health impact assessment

Open access
Domínguez-Ares, Elvira, Martín-Olmedo, Piedad, Iglesias-Merchan, Carlos·2020·Environmental Impact Assessment Review

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106445

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A recent study conducted in Spain during an HIA reported that among surveyed professionals, the determinants considered most important were not consistent with scientific evidence, and habits and lifestyles ranked at the top of this classification.

    “Une étude récente réalisée en Espagne lors d'une EIS rapporte que chez les professionnels enquêtés, les déterminants considérés comme les plus importants n'étaient pas concordants avec les preuves scientifiques et que les habitudes et styles de vie figuraient en tête de ce classement[9].”

    From L’évaluation d’impact sur la santé pour scruter et sculpter les politiques (2021) · cites this paper as [9]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Kemm, J. (Ed.). (2013). Health impact assessment: past achievement, current understanding, and future progress. Oxford University Press. Oxford, United Kingdom.
  2. NRC. (2011). Improving health in the United States: the role of health impact assessment. National Research Council. National Academies Press.
  3. XXX, 2013 masked for blind review
  4. XXX, 2014 masked for blind review
  5. XXX, 2019 masked for blind review 67. XXX, 2020a masked for blind review 68. XXX, 2020b masked for blind

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Domínguez-Ares, E., Martín-Olmedo, P., & Iglesias-Merchan, C.
Affiliations
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (ES)
Venue
Environmental Impact Assessment Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-11
Volume
85
Pages
106445
ISSN
0195-9255 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3044753009
Cited by
6
References
57
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Impact Assessment Review (publishedVersion)
  • Hispana (acceptedVersion)
  • UPM Digital Archive (Technical University of Madrid) (submittedVersion)
Funders
CONAMA Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental and Social Impact Assessments
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Public Health and Environmental Issues
  • Social Sciences › Health › Public Health and Social Inequalities
Keywords
health impact assessment, expert perceptions, environmental professionals, public health workforce, definition of health, professional knowledge

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review