Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27044579›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2016

Is health impact assessment useful in the context of trade negotiations? A case study of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement.

Katherine Hirono, Fiona Haigh, Deborah Gleeson, Patrick Harris, Anne Marie Thow, Sharon Friel

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Trade, intellectual property, and the public health bearing.Health systems (Basingstoke, England) · 2023
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Is It Everything We Feared for Health?International journal of health policy and management · 2016
    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

6 authors.

Katherine HironoCentre for Health Equity Training, Research and Evaluation, University of New South Wales, A Member of the Ingham Institute, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia.
Fiona HaighCentre for Health Equity Training, Research and Evaluation, University of New South Wales, A Member of the Ingham Institute, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia.
Deborah GleesonSchool of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Patrick HarrisMenzies Centre for Health Policy, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Anne Marie ThowMenzies Centre for Health Policy, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Sharon FrielRegNet School of Regulation and Global Governance, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is a recently concluded free trade agreement involving Australia and 11 other Pacific-rim nations, which has the potential for far-reaching impacts on public health. A health impact assessment (HIA) was carried out during the negotiations to determine the potential future public health impact in Australia and to provide recommendations to mitigate potential harms. This paper explores the findings and outcomes of the HIA, and how this approach can be used to provide evidence for public health advocacy.

designA modified version of the standard HIA process was followed. The HIA was led by technical experts in HIA, trade policy, and health policy, in collaboration with advocacy organisations concerned with the TPP and health. The HIA reviewed the provisions in leaked TPP text in order to determine their potential impact on future health policy. As part of this process, researchers developed policy scenarios in order to examine how TPP provisions may affect health policies and their subsequent impact to health for both the general and vulnerable populations. The four policy areas assessed were the cost of medicines, tobacco control, alcohol control and food labelling.

resultsIn all areas assessed, the HIA found that proposed TPP provisions were likely to adversely affect health. These provisions are also likely to more adversely affect the health of vulnerable populations.

conclusionsThe HIA produced relevant evidence that was useful in advocacy efforts by stakeholders, and engaging the public through various media platforms.

Indexed as

CommerceHealth Impact AssessmentInternational CooperationNegotiatingPublic HealthAmericasAustralasiaHumansheath impact assessmentIntellectual PropertyPUBLIC HEALTHTrade agreementsTrans Pacific Partnership Agreement

Identifiers

PMID27044579
PMCPMC4823461

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.