ArticleInternational journal for equity in health2024
A realist impact evaluation of a tool to strengthen equity in local government policy-making.
Article in International journal for equity in health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Correction: A realist impact evaluation of a tool to strengthen equity in local government policy-making.International journal for equity in health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLocal governments have a critical role to play in addressing health inequities. Health equity impact assessments are recommended to help governments apply an equity lens to the development and implementation of policies and programs. Despite evidence of equity-positive benefits of such tools, adoption remains limited, prompting calls for evaluations to assess their impact and identify factors that will promote uptake across various contexts.
methodsWe conducted a mixed method study to evaluate the impact of an equity impact assessment (EIA) tool and process on policies and organisational capacity in a local government in Victoria, Australia, and identify factors that influenced this impact. We analysed 33 documents related to 18 EIAs, and conducted surveys (n = 40) and in-depth interviews (n = 17) with staff involved in EIAs.
resultsAlmost all (17 of 18) EIAs resulted in equity-positive changes to policies and programs, most frequently addressing individual-level factors, such as making community communications and consultations more accessible to under-represented or under-served groups. Structural-level recommendations from one EIA, such as increasing diversity in decision-making panels, were found to impact both the current policy and a broad range of future, related projects and services. Improvements in equity-centric organisational culture and capacity (including staff awareness, skills and confidence) and increased engagement with under-represented communities were also reported. Factors perceived to influence the impact of EIA's related to organisational commitment and capacity to prioritise equity, process-level factors related to the type and timing of EIAs, and extent of implementation support.
conclusionOur study supports wider uptake of health equity impact assessments in local government policies and programs. Legislation, leadership and resources from upper-tiers of government can help increase the adoption of equity tools to reduce disparities in population health.
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.