ArticlePublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2022
Professional workforce training needs for Health Impact Assessment in spatial planning: A cross sectional survey.
Article in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evidence for the effectiveness of health impact assessment in spatial planning on health outcomes: A systematic review and stakeholder involvement from a UK perspective.Public health · 2025Pooled it
- Implementation of Health Impact Assessment in the Healthcare System of the Republic of Kazakhstan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- Facilitators, Barriers and Views on the Role of Public Health Institutes in Promoting and Using Health Impact Assessment-An International Virtual Scoping Survey and Expert Interviews.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Heath Impact Assessment (HIA) in spatial planning can influence wider determinants and prevent ill-health, promote good health and reduce inequalities. They remain underutilised in England, partly due to inadequate workforce training. This study sought to identify the training needs of Public Health Professionals, Planners and Impact Assessment Practitioners in England in 2021. Study design: Cross-sectional survey. Methods: A survey was undertaken of Public Health Professionals, Planners and Impact Assessment Practitioners to ascertain their training needs. Descriptive statistics, frequency tables and charts summarised feedback. Results: 76% (68) of 90 total respondents, never received any training in HIAs. Quantifying impact of planning on health, especially in monetary terms and monitoring success of HIA recommendations, were common challenges for all professions. Musculoskeletal health and infectious disease were among specific health impacts where professionals welcomed further training. Public Health professionals requested support to identify high-impact interventions and work more collaboratively with Planners and a need to justify budgets for undertaking HIAs. Planners expressed training needs around justifying requirement for HIAs, data collection; and identifying local public health priorities. Impact Assessment Practitioners expressed uncertainty about policy triggers needed to undertake HIAs citing that the scale of HIAs must be proportional to project scope, the challenge of identifying planning interventions and a need to apply consistent methodological approaches in HIAs. Conclusion: There is need for baseline training to upskill all professionals, alongside tailored-training on key topic areas to address profession- and locality-specific needs to ensure spatial planning decisions better influence wider determinants and address local health priorities.
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.