ArticleHealth research policy and systems2025
Exploring factors influencing health impact assessment policy identification in China: a comparative study of health and nonhealth sectors.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExisting research indicates that both subject trust and procedural justice exert an influence on government staff's level of identification with health impact assessment (HIA) policies, revealing notable differences in attitudes, comprehension levels and preferences for implementing HIA policies among staff from different sectors. There is an urgent requirement to develop an integrated research model that systematically investigates the extent of HIA policy identification and its underlying drivers, commencing with the perspectives of staff from health and nonhealth sectors alike.
methodsA questionnaire survey using a multistage stratified random sampling method was conducted among health sector staff (n = 247) and nonhealth sector staff (n = 408) in Zhejiang province in China. Univariate analysis was used to describe differences in HIA policy identification between the two groups. A multigroup analysis within a structural equation model tested the similarities and differences of influencing factors on HIA policy identification in different sectors.
resultsHealth sector staff (4.26 ± 0.59) demonstrated a significantly higher level of policy cognition regarding HIA than nonhealth sector staff (3.96 ± 0.63). Conversely, nonhealth sector staff (3.72 ± 0.73) exhibited significantly higher levels of policy evaluation than health sector staff (3.47 ± 0.88). Subject trust positively influenced the three dimensions of HIA policy identification for both groups. However, procedural justice only positively influenced the policy sentiment and evaluation of health sector staff, with no significant impact on nonhealth sector staff. Additionally, other factors, such as position, education, work experience and familiarity with HIA, impacted HIA policy identification across sectors.
conclusionsThis study confirms that subject trust can enhance policy identification and cooperative behaviour. On the basis of this, the health sector should strive to understand the policy objectives of other sectors to seize opportunities for action, thereby enabling nonhealth sectors to participate in the actions of the health sector.
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.