ReviewMaternal and child health journal2022
Health Impact Assessment: A Missed Opportunity for MCH Professionals in Their Quest to Address the Social Determinants of Health.
Review in Maternal and child health journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Routemap for health impact assessment implementation: scoping review using the consolidated framework for implementation research.Health promotion international · 2025Article
- Characterizing Social Determinants of Maternal and Child Health: A Qualitative Community Health Needs Assessment in Underserved Areas.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPublic health professionals, especially ones concerned with maternal and child health (MCH), need to engage in cross-sector collaborations to address social determinants of health. Health Impact Assessment (HIA) systematically brings public health perspectives into non-health decision-making contexts that influence social determinants. Alignment of MCH and HIA practice has not previously been documented.
methodsAn exploratory review of HIAs conducted in the United States considered several dimensions of MCH-HIA alignment and produced data to test the hypothesis that HIAs involving MCH stakeholders are more likely to address MCH populations and relevant measures. The review examined three key variables for each HIA: inclusion of MCH-focused stakeholders, level of focus on MCH populations, and presence of MCH-relevant content.
resultsOf the 424 HIAs included in the database of US HIAs, 350 were included in this review. Twenty-four percent (84) included MCH-focused stakeholders, and 42% (148) focused on MCH populations. Ninety percent (317) included metrics or content relevant to at least one Title V National Performance Measure (NPM). HIAs that clearly included MCH stakeholders had seven times the odds of including both a focus on MCH populations and at least one NPM-relevant topic compared to HIAs that did not clearly include MCH stakeholders (OR 6.98; 95% CI 3.99, 12.20). DISCUSSION: Despite low engagement of MCH stakeholders in HIAs, many still consider MCH populations and measures. Intentional engagement of MCH workforce in HIAs could ensure greater alignment with existing MCH priorities (such as addressing the social determinants of health and equity) in a given jurisdiction.
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.