Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

What makes health impact assessments successful? Factors contributing to effectiveness in Australia and New Zealand

Authors: Fiona Haigh, Elizabeth Harris, Ben Harris-Roxas, Fran Baum, Andrew L. Dannenberg, Mark F. Harris, Helen Keleher, Lynn Kemp, Richard Morgan, Harrison NG Chok, Jeff Spickett

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

While many guidelines explain how to conduct Health Impact Assessments (HIAs), less is known about the factors that determine the extent to which HIAs affect health considerations in the decision making process. We investigated which factors are associated with increased or reduced effectiveness of HIAs in changing decisions and in the implementation of policies, programs or projects. This study builds on and tests the Harris and Harris-Roxas’ conceptual framework for evaluating HIA effectiveness, which emphasises context, process and output as key domains.

Methods

We reviewed 55 HIA reports in Australia and New Zealand from 2005 to 2009 and conducted surveys and interviews for 48 of these HIAs. Eleven detailed case studies were undertaken using document review and stakeholder interviews. Case study participants were selected through purposeful and snowball sampling. The data were analysed by thematic content analysis. Findings were synthesised and mapped against the conceptual framework. A stakeholder forum was utilised to test face validity and practical adequacy of the findings.

Results

We found that some features of HIA are essential, such as the stepwise but flexible process, and evidence based approach. Non-essential features that can enhance the impact of HIAs include capacity and experience; ‘right person right level’; involvement of decision-makers and communities; and relationships and partnerships. There are contextual factors outside of HIA such as fit with planning and decision making context, broader global context and unanticipated events, and shared values and goals that may influence a HIA. Crosscutting factors include proactive positioning, and time and timeliness. These all operate within complex open systems, involving multiple decision-makers, levels of decision-making, and points of influence. The Harris and Harris-Roxas framework was generally supported.

Conclusion

We have confirmed previously identified factors influencing effectiveness of HIA and identified new factors such as proactive positioning. Our findings challenge some presumptions about ‘right’ timing for HIA and the rationality and linearity of decision-making processes. The influence of right timing on decision making needs to be seen within the context of other factors such as proactive positioning. This research can help HIA practitioners and researchers understand and identify what can be enhanced within the HIA process. Practitioners can adapt the flexible HIA process to accommodate the external contextual factors identified in this report.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Harris-Roxas B, Viliani F, Bond A, Cave B, Divall M, Furu P, et al. Health impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 2012;30(1):43–52.CrossRef
2.
Hebert KA, Wendel AM, Kennedy SK, Dannenberg AL. Health impact assessment: a comparison of 45 local, national, and international guidelines. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2012;34:74–82.CrossRef
3.
Snyder J, Wagler M, Lkhagvasuren O, Laing L, Davison C, Janes C. An equity tool for health impact assessments: reflections from Mongolia. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2012;34:83–91.CrossRef
4.
Wendel AM. Establishing the practice of health impact assessment in the United States. J Environ Health. 2012;75(1):32–3.PubMed
5.
Kemm J. Health Impact Assessment: Past achievements, current understandings, and future progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.
6.
Signal L, Soeberg M, Quigley R. Health impact assessment in local government: A New Zealand case study. In: O’Mullane M, editor. Integrating Health Impact Assessment into the Policy Process: Lessons and Experiences from around the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. p. 109–18.CrossRef
7.
Vohra S, Amo-Danso G, Ball J. Health impact assessment and its role in shaping government policy making: the use of health impact assessment at the national level in England. In: O’Mullane M, editor. Integrating Health Impact Assessment with the Policy Process: Lessons and Experiences from Around the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013. p. 76–87.CrossRef
8.
Kraemer SR, Gulis G. How do experts define relevance criteria when initiating Health Impact Assessments of national policies? Scand J Public Health. 2014;42(1):18–24.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Haigh F, Baum F, Dannenberg AL, Harris MF, Harris-Roxas B, Keleher H, et al. The effectiveness of health impact assessment in influencing decision-making in Australia and New Zealand 2005–2009. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):1188.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Harris E, Haigh F, Baum F, Harris-Roxas B, Kemp L, Ng Chok H, et al. The Effectiveness of Health Impact Assessment in New Zealand and Australia 2005–2009. Sydney: Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales; 2013.
11.
Haigh F, Harris E, Ng Chok H, Baum F, Harris-Roxas B, Kemp L, et al. Characteristics of health impact assessments reported in Australia and New Zealand 2005–2009. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2013;37(6):534–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
O’Mullane M. Integrating Health Impact Assessment with the Policy Process: Lessons and Experiences from around the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.
13.
Rhodus J, Fulk F, Autrey B, O’Shea S, Roth A. A Review of Health Impact Assessments in the U.S.: Current State-of-Science, Best Practices, and Areas for Improvement. Cincinnati: Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2013.
14.
15.
Harris-Roxas B, Harris E. Differing forms, differing purposes: a typology of health impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2011;31(4):396–403.CrossRef
16.
Harris-Roxas B, Haigh F, Travaglia J, Kemp L. Evaluating the impact of equity focused health impact assessment on health service planning: three case studies. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):371.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Sanderson I. Evaluation in complex policy systems. Evaluation. 2000;6(4):433–54.CrossRef
18.
Blau J, Ernst K, Wismar M, Baro F, Gabrijelcic Blenkus M, von Bremen K, et al. The Use of Health Impact Assessment Across Europe. In: Ståhl T, Wismar M, Ollila E, Lahtinen E, Leppo K, editors. Health in All Policies: Prospects and potentials. Helsinki: Ministry of Social Affairs and Health; 2006. p. 209–30.
19.
Harris-Roxas B, Harris E. The impact and effectiveness of health impact assessment: a conceptual framework. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2013;42:51–9.CrossRef
20.
21.
Schuchter J, Bhatia R, Corburn J, Seto E. Health impact assessment in the United States: Has practice followed standards? Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2014;47:47–53.CrossRef
22.
23.
Yin RK. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2002.
24.
Stake RE. Multiple Case Study Analysis. London: Guilford Press; 2005.
25.
Oxford University Press. The Oxford English dictionary online. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.
26.
Davenport C, Mathers J, Parry J. Use of health impact assessment in incorporating health considerations in decision making. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(3):196–201.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Wismar M, Blau J, Ernst K, Figueras J. The Effectiveness of Health Impact Assessment: Scope and limitations of supporting decision-making in Europe. Brussels: European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies; 2007.
28.
Harris P, Haigh F, Thornell M, Molloy L, Sainsbury P. Housing, health and master planning: rules of engagement. Public Health. 2014;128(4):354–9.CrossRefPubMed
29.
30.
Smith KE, Katikireddi SV. A glossary of theories for understanding policymaking. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013;67(2):198–202.CrossRefPubMed
31.
32.
Delany T, Harris P, Williams C, Harris E, Baum F, Lawless A, et al. Health Impact Assessment in New South Wales & Health in All Policies in South Australia: differences, similarities and connections. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(1):699.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Gase LN, Pennotti R, Smith KD. “Health in All Policies”: taking stock of emerging practices to incorporate health in decision making in the United States. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2013;19(6):529–40.CrossRefPubMed
34.
35.
Greene JC, Caracelli VJ, Graham WF. Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educ Eval Policy Anal. 1989;11(3):255–74.CrossRef
36.
Kingdon JW. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Glenview: Ill: Pearson Education Inc; 2011.
Metadata
Title
What makes health impact assessments successful? Factors contributing to effectiveness in Australia and New Zealand
Authors
Fiona Haigh
Elizabeth Harris
Ben Harris-Roxas
Fran Baum
Andrew L. Dannenberg
Mark F. Harris
Helen Keleher
Lynn Kemp
Richard Morgan
Harrison NG Chok
Jeff Spickett
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2319-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Public Health 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Web-based interventions to decrease alcohol use in adolescents: a Delphi study about increasing effectiveness and reducing drop-out

Research article

Association between gender inequality index and child mortality rates: a cross-national study of 138 countries

Research article

Longitudinal changes in objectively measured physical activity differ for weekdays and weekends among Chinese children in Hong Kong

Research article

A scoping review and thematic analysis of social and behavioural research among HIV-serodiscordant couples in high-income settings

Study protocol

Linked randomised controlled trials of face-to-face and electronic brief intervention methods to prevent alcohol related harm in young people aged 14–17 years presenting to Emergency Departments (SIPS junior)

Research article

A systematic review including meta-analysis of work environment and depressive symptoms