ArticleJournal of epidemiology and community health2007
Validity of predictions in health impact assessment.
Article in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Assessing the unintended health impacts of road transport policies and interventions: translating research evidence for use in policy and practice.BMC public health · 2008Pooled it
- Predicted and observed impacts of COVID-19 lockdowns: two Health Impact Assessments in Scotland and Wales.Health promotion international · 2022Article
- Health Impact Assessment, Physical Activity and Federal Lands Trail Policy.Health behavior and policy review · 2014Article
- Article
- Prioritizing policy interventions to improve diets? Will it work, can it happen, will it do harm?Health promotion international · 2010Article
- Population-based simulations of influenza pandemics: validity and significance for public health policy.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2009Article
- Integrating human health into environmental impact assessment: an unrealized opportunity for environmental health and justice.Environmental health perspectives · 2008Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn essential characteristic of health impact assessment (HIA) is that it seeks to predict the future consequences of possible decisions for health. These predictions have to be valid, but as yet it is unclear how validity should be defined in HIA.
aimsTo examine the philosophical basis for predictions and the relevance of different forms of validity to HIA.
conclusionsHIA is valid if formal validity, plausibility and predictive validity are in order. Both formal validity and plausibility can usually be established, but establishing predictive validity implies outcome evaluation of HIA. This is seldom feasible owing to long time lags, migration, measurement problems, a lack of data and sensitive indicators, and the fact that predictions may influence subsequent events. Predictive validity most often is not attainable in HIA and we have to make do with formal validity and plausibility. However, in political science, this is by no means exceptional.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.