ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2024
A New Framework for Monitoring and Evaluating Health Impact Assessment: Capitalising on a French Case Study with the Literature in Evaluation.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Evaluation and optimization of municipal-level health impact assessment policies in China based on the PMC index model.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Health impact assessment (HIA) is a prospective approach that aims to identify the potential consequences of policies or projects on health in order to propose measures to make them healthier. Initiated in the late nineties, the approach emerged over ten years ago in France. However, the evaluation of HIA effectiveness remains seldomly practised and its theoretical background should be deepened. The aim of this article is to generate a discussion on how to evaluate HIA effectiveness and contribute to its methodological tooling, drawing on an evaluative experience of multiple French HIAs. Our work is based on an iterative approach between an analysis of the evaluation literature and a critical look at an HIA evaluation. We first carried out the evaluation of three HIAs in 2017-2018, combining a normative approach and qualitative research in order to explore each HIA as a phenomenon in its own context. Two years later, we conducted a self-assessing expertise on this evaluation, supported by an analysis of the literature in the field of public policy evaluation, in order to refine the theoretical framework for evaluating HIA effectiveness and ultimately to enhance professional practice by evaluators. This work led to the production of a logic model that identifies, through three dimensions (context, implementation and governance), the multiple pathways that HIA may take to bring about change. It also seeks to show the interdependence of these pathways towards change and helps identify the key drivers and mechanisms of HIA success. In this respect, it complements existing HIA evaluation models as it can serve both as a generic framework for evaluating HIA effectiveness and as an instrument for monitoring HIA implementation.
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.