Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39402488›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2024

Health impact assessment in two planning projects in England: reflections on normative effectiveness.

Thomas B Fischer, Michael Chang, Tara Muthoora

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2024. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. 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

3 authors.

Thomas B FischerEnvironment Assessment and Management Research Centre, University of Liverpool, 74 Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L697ZQ, UK. fischer@liverpool.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-1436-1221
Michael ChangDepartment of Health and Social Care, Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2756-272X
Tara MuthooraEnvironment Assessment and Management Research Centre, University of Liverpool, 74 Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L697ZQ, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5178-312X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis article reports on research commissioned by (what was at the time) Public Health England (PHE). The objective is to reflect on the normative effectiveness of Health Impact Assessment (HIA) applied to two planning projects; (a) the new town at Cranbrook, Devon (HIA prepared in 2007), and (b) the regeneration of the Marsh farm area in Luton (HIA prepared in 2009). In this context, the focus is on the contribution of HIA to actions that are intended to lead to good or improved health and wellbeing.

methodsNormative HIA effectiveness criteria derived from a literature review were used to guide the analysis. The two included HIA cases were previously identified as good practice examples with regards to procedure and report quality. Semi-structured interviews with public health, planning and other actors originally involved in the HIAs were conducted in 2021. This was followed up by web-searches for evidence on actual developments in 2023.

resultsInterviews indicated that normative effectiveness initially appeared to be high, but that the longer-term effects of the financial crash of 2008 reduced this. Delays in initially anticipated timelines and HIA actors moving elsewhere or retiring meant that HIAs were not followed-up and connections between developments and the HIAs were no longer made. However, web-based searches conducted in 2023 found that key HIA suggestions were eventually implemented, albeit with delay. There is also evidence for improved IMD (index of multiple deprivation) rankings in the Marsh farm regeneration case.

conclusionA mismatch is observed with regards to HIA exercises appearing to be largely 'forgotten' after over a decade of their publication, but recommendations still being implemented, possibly as a result of 'institutional memory'. Making monitoring and follow-up of HIA binding rather than advisory would allow for direct linkages to be made.

Indexed as

Health Impact AssessmentEnglandHealth PlanningHumansInterviews as TopicProgram EvaluationQualitative ResearchEvaluationHealth impact assessmentNormative effectivenessOutcomesSpatial planning

Identifiers

PMID39402488
PMCPMC11476767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.