Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25005916›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2014

Health Impact Assessment in New South Wales & Health in All Policies in South Australia: differences, similarities and connections.

Toni Delany, Patrick Harris, Carmel Williams, Elizabeth Harris, Fran Baum, Angela Lawless, Deborah Wildgoose, Fiona Haigh, Colin MacDougall, Danny Broderick and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. The public health impacts of mining in Australia.The Medical journal of Australia · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Implementation of Health Impact Assessment in the Healthcare System of the Republic of Kazakhstan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 'Health in All Policies'-A Key Driver for Health and Well-Being in a Post-COVID-19 Pandemic World.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Health Impact Assessments in Spain: Have They Been Effective?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Toni DelanySouthgate Institute for Health Society and Equity, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. toni.delany@flinders.edu.au.
Patrick Harris
Carmel Williams
Elizabeth Harris
Fran Baum
Angela Lawless
Deborah Wildgoose
Fiona Haigh
Colin MacDougall
Danny Broderick
Ilona Kickbusch

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPolicy decisions made within all sectors have the potential to influence population health and equity. Recognition of this provides impetus for the health sector to engage with other sectors to facilitate the development of policies that recognise, and aim to improve, population outcomes. This paper compares the approaches implemented to facilitate such engagement in two Australian jurisdictions. These are Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in New South Wales (NSW) and Health in All Policies (HiAP) in South Australia (SA).

methodsThe comparisons presented in this paper emerged through collaborative activities between stakeholders in both jurisdictions, including critical reflection on HIA and HiAP practice, joint participation in a workshop, and the preparation of a discussion paper written to inform a conference plenary session. The plenary provided an opportunity for the incorporation of additional insights from policy practitioners and academics.

resultsComparison of the approaches indicates that their overall intent is similar. Differences exist, however, in the underpinning principles, technical processes and tactical strategies applied. These differences appear to stem mainly from the organisational positioning of the work in each state and the extent to which each approach is linked to government systems.

conclusionsThe alignment of the HiAP approach with the systems of the SA Government increases the likelihood of influence within the policy cycle. However, the political priorities and sensitivities of the SA Government limit the scope of HiAP work. The implementation of the HIA approach from outside government in NSW means greater freedom to collaborate with a range of partners and to assess policy issues in any area, regardless of government priorities. However, the comparative distance of HIA from NSW Government systems may reduce the potential for impact on government policy. The diversity in the technical and tactical strategies that are applied within each approach provides insight into how the approaches have been tailored to suit the particular contexts in which they have been implemented.

Indexed as

GovernmentHealth Impact AssessmentHealth PolicyPolicy MakingAdultChildHumansNew South WalesSouth Australia

Identifiers

PMID25005916
PMCPMC4227125

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.