Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41130165›Full record

SynthesisPublic health2025

Evidence for the effectiveness of health impact assessment in spatial planning on health outcomes: A systematic review and stakeholder involvement from a UK perspective.

Lindsay Blank, Emma Hock, Anna Cantrell, Elizabeth Goyder

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Lindsay BlankSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), School of Medicine and Health, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK. Electronic address: l.blank@sheffield.ac.uk.
Emma HockSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), School of Medicine and Health, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Anna CantrellSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), School of Medicine and Health, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.
Elizabeth GoyderSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), School of Medicine and Health, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesHealth Impact Assessment (HIA) is a decision support method used for evaluating the impact of actual or planned developments on health and wellbeing, including the wider determinants of health. There is a lack of evidence on the effectiveness of HIA in achieving health benefits in England, and no statutory requirement for the use of HIA. The aim of this review was to undertake an evidence synthesis and use stakeholder consultation to understand the relevant factors and mechanisms by which HIA may effectively influence population health outcomes. STUDY

designSystematic review and stakeholder consultation.

methodsWe used systematic searches of eight academic databases and supplementary citation and reference list searches of included papers focusing on UK literature. We also identified any potentially relevant UK grey literature that was in the public domain. We extracted key data from the papers and synthesised the data thematically. We developed a typology of factors and themes. We involved a UK wide stakeholder group of UK planners, local and national government public health specialists, academics, and commercial HIA providers (n = 38 in total) in two workshops to help us to identify grey literature sources, interpret the evidence, and consider the potential for developing a statutory requirement for the use of HIA.

resultsFrom 5117 unique records we considered 147 full texts from databases. We also identified 58 grey literature sources. Nineteen UK studies met inclusion criteria. The data themes were grouped into three categories: (1) Who to involve: Teamwork - health and planning n = 9; Links with commercial developers n = 2; Community involvement n = 2; Wider stakeholder involvement n = 4. (2) What is needed: Resources n = 5; Knowledge and understanding n = 6; Training n = 1; National policy and guidance n = 10; Evidence base n = 4. (3) Aspects of the appraisal: Appraisal timings/approach n = 6; Outcome timescales n = 1; Health definitions n = 7; Quantifying impact n = 2. Our final stakeholder workshop identified the challenges in using existing frameworks to develop a statutory requirement for England including the lack of national policy imperative, and the challenges in developing an effectiveness evidence base. We were not able to link the use of HIA in spatial planning directly to UK health outcomes.

conclusionsEvidence exists which could inform the development of a statutory requirement for conducting HIA in spatial planning in England. However, this evidence is not able to link the use of HIA in spatial planning directly to health outcomes. The qualitative themes identified in our review could however inform future discussion about the feasibility of developing the evidence base to include direct measures of health. A key challenge is motivating stakeholders to engage with developing the evidence base. It is also challenging to see how an evidence base could develop without a national policy requiring the use of HIA in the spatial planning process. In order to generate appropriate data to demonstrate the effectiveness of HIA in terms of health improvement, it might first be necessary to make them an explicit requirement of the planning process.

Indexed as

Health Impact AssessmentHealth PlanningStakeholder ParticipationHumansUnited KingdomHealth impact assessmentHealth outcomesSystematic reviewWellbeing

Identifiers

PMID41130165
PMCPMC12700169

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.