Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26433492›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2015

What makes health impact assessments successful? Factors contributing to effectiveness in Australia and New Zealand.

Fiona Haigh, Elizabeth Harris, Ben Harris-Roxas, Fran Baum, Andrew L Dannenberg, Mark F Harris, Helen Keleher, Lynn Kemp, Richard Morgan, Harrison Ng Chok and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. '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
  14. HIA and EIA Are Different, but Maybe Not in the Way We Thought They Were: A Bibliometric Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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 · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Fiona HaighCentre for Health Equity Training, Research and Evaluation CHETRE, Ingham Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052, Australia. f.haigh@unsw.edu.au.
Elizabeth HarrisCentre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052, Australia. e.harris@unsw.edu.au.
Ben Harris-RoxasCentre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052, Australia. b.harris-roxas@unsw.edu.au.
Fran BaumSouthgate Institute for Health, Society & Equity, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. fran.baum@flinders.edu.au.
Andrew L DannenbergUniversity of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, USA. adannen@uw.edu.
Mark F HarrisCentre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052, Australia. m.f.harris@unsw.edu.au.
Helen KeleherSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. helen.keleher@monash.edu.
Lynn KempCentre for Health Equity Training, Research and Evaluation CHETRE, Ingham Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052, Australia. l.kemp@unsw.edu.au.
Richard MorganCentre for Impact Assessment Research and Training (CIART), Department of Geography, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. rkm@geography.otago.ac.nz.
Harrison Ng ChokCentre for Health Equity Training, Research and Evaluation CHETRE, Ingham Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052, Australia. h.ngchok@unsw.edu.au.
Jeff SpickettWHO Collaborating Centre in Environmental Health Impact Assessment and School of Public Health, Curtin University, Bentley, Australia. J.Spickett@curtin.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile many guidelines explain how to conduct Health Impact Assessments (HIAs), less is known about the factors that determine the extent to which HIAs affect health considerations in the decision making process. We investigated which factors are associated with increased or reduced effectiveness of HIAs in changing decisions and in the implementation of policies, programs or projects. This study builds on and tests the Harris and Harris-Roxas' conceptual framework for evaluating HIA effectiveness, which emphasises context, process and output as key domains.

methodsWe reviewed 55 HIA reports in Australia and New Zealand from 2005 to 2009 and conducted surveys and interviews for 48 of these HIAs. Eleven detailed case studies were undertaken using document review and stakeholder interviews. Case study participants were selected through purposeful and snowball sampling. The data were analysed by thematic content analysis. Findings were synthesised and mapped against the conceptual framework. A stakeholder forum was utilised to test face validity and practical adequacy of the findings.

resultsWe found that some features of HIA are essential, such as the stepwise but flexible process, and evidence based approach. Non-essential features that can enhance the impact of HIAs include capacity and experience; 'right person right level'; involvement of decision-makers and communities; and relationships and partnerships. There are contextual factors outside of HIA such as fit with planning and decision making context, broader global context and unanticipated events, and shared values and goals that may influence a HIA. Crosscutting factors include proactive positioning, and time and timeliness. These all operate within complex open systems, involving multiple decision-makers, levels of decision-making, and points of influence. The Harris and Harris-Roxas framework was generally supported.

conclusionWe have confirmed previously identified factors influencing effectiveness of HIA and identified new factors such as proactive positioning. Our findings challenge some presumptions about 'right' timing for HIA and the rationality and linearity of decision-making processes. The influence of right timing on decision making needs to be seen within the context of other factors such as proactive positioning. This research can help HIA practitioners and researchers understand and identify what can be enhanced within the HIA process. Practitioners can adapt the flexible HIA process to accommodate the external contextual factors identified in this report.

Indexed as

Decision MakingAustraliaHealth Impact AssessmentHumansNew ZealandReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID26433492
PMCPMC4592749

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.