ArticleBMC public health2024
Health impact assessment in two planning projects in England: reflections on normative effectiveness.
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.
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
- Design, structure, and application of conductive polymer hybrid materials: a comprehensive review of classification, fabrication, and multifunctionality.RSC advances · 2025Review
- Routemap for health impact assessment implementation: scoping review using the consolidated framework for implementation research.Health promotion international · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.