ArticleBMC public health2025
Global priorities in HIA research: a new agenda for the next decade.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Relevant domains for health technology assessment of medical device reimbursement in Brazil's unified health system: a survey and Delphi panel study on stakeholder preferences.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Pooled it
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth Impact Assessment (HIA) advances Health in All Policies by identifying impacts of proposed actions on health and equity and recommending changes to address these impacts. Since the Gothenburg Consensus Statement in 1999, HIA has been applied to policies, plans, programmes and projects in multiple sectors and settings across the world. Despite demonstrated effectiveness, its use across the world is inconsistent with few nations systematically using HIA. In a global context of increasing health inequities, pandemics, climate change, and economic crises, HIA can help integrate health and equity into decision making. There is a need for research to support the ongoing evolution and development of HIA. This paper presents a research agenda for the field of HIA.
methodsWe used a mixed method approach utilising insights of approximately 280 participants through an international online survey and participatory workshops. We compared priority areas of research identified through the survey, workshops, and literature review to inform the development of a research agenda. The team drew on their own positioning and experience as HIA practitioners and researchers to shape this agenda.
resultsWe identified four research priorities: (1) Institutionalisation - Sustaining and institutionalising HIA in varying contexts and levels. (2) Influence - Identifying mechanisms and strategies that can be employed to effectively influence stakeholders and decision making. (3) Equity and Participation - Analysing the role of equity, justice, power and participation in HIA, and (4) Methodology - Improving HIA Methods to understand the complex relationships between proposed actions, health and health equity outcomes and identifying what to do. We developed research questions for each theme.
conclusionsThe research agenda advocates for sustained research and practice to strengthen impact and address knowledge gaps in the field. Functioning as a roadmap for both researchers and funders, it aims to contribute to a healthier and more equitable world. Recognising the valuable role of HIA in addressing global health challenges, the agenda encourages researchers to investigate, develop, and advance the field of HIA.
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.