ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2014
Health Impact Assessment practice and potential for integration within Environmental Impact and Strategic Environmental Assessments in Italy.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lessons from an International Initiative to Set and Share Good Practice on Human Health in Environmental Impact Assessment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Framework for Participatory Quantitative Health Impact Assessment in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Process, Practice and Progress: A Case Study of the Health Impact Assessment (HIA) of Brexit in Wales.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Challenges and Prospects for Integrating the Assessment of Health Impacts in the Licensing Process of Large Capital Project in Brazil.International journal of health policy and management · 2018Article
- Health impact assessment: improving its effectiveness in the enhancement of health and well-being.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Avoiding or minimizing potential environmental impact is the driving idea behind protecting a population's health via Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs). However, both are often carried out without any systematic approach. This paper describes the findings of a review of HIA, EIA andSEA experiences carried out by the authors, who act as institutional competent subjects at the national and regional levels in Italy. The analysis of how health is tackled in EIA and SEA procedures could support the definition of a protocol for the integration of HIA with EIA and SEA. Although EIA and SEA approaches include the aim of protecting health,significant technical and methodological gaps are present when assessing health systematically, and their basic principles regarding assessment are unsatisfactory for promoting and addressing healthcare concepts stated by the WHO. HIA is still poorly integrated into the decision-making process, screening and monitoring phases are only occasionally implemented, and operational details are not well-defined. The collaborative approach of institutions involved in environment and health is a core element in a systematic advancement toward supporting effective decisions and effective protection ofthe environment and health. At the Italian national level, the definition of guidelines and tools for HIA, also in relation with EIA and SEA, is of great interest.
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.