International Journal of Health Policy and Management

International Journal of Health Policy and Management

The Search for Underlying Principles of Health Impact Assessment: Progress and Prospects; Comment on “Investigating Underlying Principles to Guide Health Impact Assessment”

Document Type : Commentary

Authors
Mirko Winkler 1, 2
Jürg Utzinger 1, 2
1 Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland
2 University of Basel, Petersplatz, Basel, Switzerland
10.15171/ijhpm.2014.69
Abstract
Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is a relatively young field of endeavour, and hence, future progress will depend on the planning, implementation and rigorous evaluation of additional HIAs of projects, programmes and policies the world over. In the June 2014 issue of the International Journal of Health Policy and Management, Fakhri and colleagues investigated underlying principles of HIA through a comprehensive review of the literature and expert consultation. With an emphasis on the Islamic Republic of Iran, the authors identified multiple issues that are relevant for guiding HIA practice. At the same time, the study unravelled current shortcomings in the understanding and definition of HIA principles and best practice at national, regional, and global levels. In this commentary we scrutinise the research presented, highlight strengths and limitations, and discuss the findings in the context of other recent attempts to guide HIA.
Keywords
Health Impact Assessment (HIA)
Guidelines
Islamic Republic of Iran
Subjects
  1. Kemm J. Health impact assessment: past achievement, current understanding, and future progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199656011.001.0001
  2. Harris-Roxas B, Harris E. Differing forms, differing purposes: a typology of health impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2011; 31: 396–403. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2010.03.003
  3. Harris P, Sainsbury P, Kemp L. The fit between health impact assessment and public policy: practice meets theory. Soc Sci Med 2014; 108: 46–53.
  4. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2012.01.003
  5. Fakhri A, Maleki M, Gohari M, Harris P. Investigating underlying principles to guide health impact assessment. Int J Health Policy Manag 2014; 3: 17–22. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2014.50
  6. Delbecq AL, Van de Ven AH, Gustafson DH. Group techniques for program planning: a guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Glenview, Illinois: Scott Foresman and Company; 1975.
  7. Douglas MJ, Conway L, Gorman D, Gavin S, Hanlon P. Developing principles for health impact assessment. J Public Health Med 2001; 23: 148–54. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/23.2.148
  8. Quigley RL, den Broeder P, Furu P, Bond B, Cave B, Bos R. Health impact assessment international best practice principles. Fargo: International Association for Impact Assessment; 2006.
  9. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6: 6. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
  10. Krieger GR, Utzinger J, Winkler MS, Divall MJ, Phillips SD, Balge MZ, et al. Barbarians at the gate: storming the Gothenburg consensus. Lancet 2010; 375: 2129–31. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(10)60591-0
  11. Vohra S, Cave B, Viliani F, Harris-Roxas BF, Bhatia R. New international consensus on health impact assessment. Lancet 2010; 376: 1464–5. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(10)61991-5
  12. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2014.03.001
  13. Scott-Samuel A. Health impact assessment: an idea whose time has come. BMJ 1996; 313: 183-4. doi: 10.1136/bmj.313.7051.183
  14. Harris-Roxas B, Viliani F, Cave B, Divall MJ, Furu P, Harris P, et al. Health impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 2012; 30: 43–52. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2012.666035
  15. Erlanger TE, Krieger GR, Singer BH, Utzinger J. The 6/94 gap in health impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 2008; 28: 349–58. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2007.07.003
  16. Dora C. A perspective on health impact assessment, global health, and the role of WHO. In: Kemm J, editor. Past achievement, current understanding and future progress in health impact assessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 285–93.
  17. Winkler MS, Krieger GR, Divall MJ, Cissé G, Wielga M, Singer BH, et al. Untapped potential of health impact assessment. Bull World Health Organ 2013; 91: 298–305. doi: 10.2471/blt.12.112318
  18. Parry JM, Kemm JR. Criteria for use in the evaluation of health impact assessments. Public Health 2005; 119: 1122–9. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2005.05.002
  19. Winkler MS. Health impact assessment in complex eco-epidemiological settings in the humid tropics [PhD thesis]. Basel: Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, an associated institute of the University of Basel; 2011.

 

  • Received Date 09 July 2014
  • Revised Date 26 July 2014
  • Accepted Date 25 July 2014
  • First Published Date 25 July 2014
  • Published Date 01 July 2014