Use of health impact assessment in incorporating health considerations in decision making
Open accessAbstract
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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
En France, le guide IsadOrA propose pour les opérations d'aménagement un cadre méthodologique structuré en 15 clés opérationnelles à déployer aux 7 étapes d'élaboration d'une opération d'aménagement.
“Cependant, en France, le guide IsadOrA [33] propose pour les opérations d'aménagement, un cadre méthodologique structuré en 15 clés opérationnelles (chacune d'elles intégrant plusieurs déterminants de santé) à déployer aux 7 étapes d'élaboration d'une opération d'aménagement.”
From L’évaluation d’impact sur la santé pour scruter et sculpter les politiques (2021) · cites this paper as [33]
The paper’s sections on HIA methods and case studies discuss methodological consistency and assessment timing, but do not describe the French IsadOrA guide. Searches for IsadOrA, its 15 operational keys, and its seven planning stages found no supporting passage in our copy; no page number was available for the retrieved passages. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLa mise à disposition d'outils et de cadres de référence par les acteurs académiques a facilité le déploiement de l'UFS à différentes échelles du territoire national.
“La mise à disposition d'outils et de cadres de référence par les acteurs académiques[32, 33] a facilité son déploiement à différentes échelles du territoire national.”
From L’évaluation d’impact sur la santé pour scruter et sculpter les politiques (2021) · cites this paper as [33]
The Identified papers section says that a consistent methodological approach and expert assessors can help health impact assessments influence decisions. It does not say that academics provided tools or reference frameworks that facilitated the deployment of UFS across different scales of a national territory. Searches for academic tools, guidance, and national or local deployment found no passage establishing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLa démarche IsadOrA entre dans la catégorie des actions de mise en œuvre de l'UFS à l'échelle d'une opération d'aménagement.
“La démarcheIsadOrA[33], dont le guide a récemment été publié entre dans cette catégorie d'action de mise en œuvre de l'UFS à l'échelle d'une opération d'aménagement.”
From L’évaluation d’impact sur la santé pour scruter et sculpter les politiques (2021) · cites this paper as [33]
The paper’s discussion of health impact assessment at project and policy levels does not identify the IsadOrA approach or its guide. Searches for IsadOrA and urban-planning projects found no passage establishing that it is an action implementing UFS at the scale of a development project. (LLM, conf=0.75)
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
Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation
(1999) · Practice Nursing · doi:10.12968/pnur.1999.10.12.4 · Cited by 638 · see citing works
Evidence for public health policy on inequalities: 1: The reality according to policymakers
Petticrew, M. P., Whitehead, M., Macintyre, S. J., Graham, H., & Egan, M. (2004) · Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.2003.015289 · Cited by 380 · see citing works
Lock, K. (2000) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7246.1395 · Cited by 337 · see citing works
Evidence for public health policy on inequalities: 2: Assembling the evidence jigsaw
Whitehead, M. M., Petticrew, M. P., Graham, H., Macintyre, S. J., Bambra, C. L., & Egan, M. (2004) · Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.2003.015297 · Cited by 235 · see citing works
Criteria for use in the evaluation of health impact assessments
Parry, J. M., & Kemm, J. R. (2005) · Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2005.05.002 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
Self-citationProspective health impact assessment: pitfalls, problems, and possible ways forward
Parry, J. M., & Stevens, A. J. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7322.1177 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
Self-citationHealth impact assessment: concepts, theory, techniques and applications.
Kemm, J. R., Parry, J. M., & Palmer, S. (2004) · Oxford University Press eBooks · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Self-citationPerspectives on health impact assessment.
Kemm, J. R. (2003) · PubMed · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Lock, K., & McKee, M. (2005) · Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.2004.024026 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
What is HIA? Introduction and overview
Kemm, J. R., Parry, J. M., & Palmer, S. (2004) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198526292.003.0001 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Self-citationLock, K., Gabrijelcic-Blenkus, M., Martuzzi, M., et al. (2003) · PubMed · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Kemm, J. R., Parry, J. M., & Palmer, S. (2004) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198526292.003.0002 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Self-citationden Broeder, L., Penris, M., & Put, G. V. (2003) · PubMed · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Kemm, J. R., Parry, J. M., & Palmer, S. (2004) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198526292.003.0022 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Self-citationKemm, J. R., Parry, J. M., & Palmer, S. (2004) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198526292.003.0021 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Self-citationHIA and national policy in the Netherlands
Kemm, J. R., Parry, J. M., & Palmer, S. (2004) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198526292.003.0016 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Self-citationKemm, J. R., Parry, J. M., & Palmer, S. (2004) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198526292.003.0007 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Abrahams D, den Broeder L, Doyle C, et al. EPHIA: European policy health impact assessment. 6th UK and Ireland health impact assessment conference, Austin Court, Birmingham, 19-20 Oct, 2004.
- Abdel Aziz MI. Conducting a comprehensive health impact assessment: the potential and constraints, (MPH dissertation). Nottingham: University of Nottingham, 2001.
- Bekker M. The impact of HIA on policy: who manages whose risks? 6th UK and Ireland health impact assessment conference, Austin Court, Birmingham, 19-20 Oct, 2004.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Systematic Literature Review of Health Impact Assessments in Low and Middle-Income Countries
Thondoo, M., Rojas-Rueda, D., Gupta, J., de Vries, D. H., & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2019) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph16112018 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Enabling factors and barriers for the use of health impact assessment in decision-making processes
Ahmad, B., Chappel, D., Pless-Mulloli, T., & White, M. (2008) · Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2007.08.014 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Jabot, F., Tremblay, E., Rivadeneyra, A., Diallo, T. A., & Lapointe, G. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17186558 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Domínguez-Ares, E., Martín-Olmedo, P., & Iglesias-Merchan, C. (2020) · Environmental Impact Assessment Review · doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106445 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
L’évaluation d’impact sur la santé pour scruter et sculpter les politiques
Jabot, F. (2021) · Santé Publique · doi:10.3917/spub.211.0007 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Davenport, C., Mathers, J., & Parry, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Birmingham (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Mathers, Jonathan
- Venue
- Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2006-02-13
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 196-201
- ISSN
- 0141-7681 (ISSN-L)
- 0143-005X
- 1470-2738
- PMC
- PMC2465566
- OpenAlex
- W2053398193
- Cited by
- 106
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 32.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental and Social Impact Assessments
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Public Health Policies and Education
- Keywords
- health impact assessment, policy implementation, barriers and facilitators
- MeSH terms
- Decision Making, Organizational, Health Planning Guidelines, Health Policy, Health Status Indicators, Humans, Public Health Administration, Program Evaluation, Community Health Planning
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
