Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Oct 3:15:1009.
doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-2319-8.

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

Fiona Haigh  1 , Elizabeth Harris  2 , Ben Harris-Roxas  3 , Fran Baum  4 , Andrew L Dannenberg  5 , Mark F Harris  6 , Helen Keleher  7 , Lynn Kemp  8 , Richard Morgan  9 , Harrison Ng Chok  10 , Jeff Spickett  11
Affiliations

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

Fiona Haigh et al. BMC Public Health. .

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Original conceptual framework for the impact and effectiveness of health impact assessment
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Revised framework for evaluating impact and effectiveness of HIA
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Harris-Roxas B, Viliani F, Bond A, Cave B, Divall M, Furu P, Harris P, Soeberg M, Wernham A, Winkler M. Health impact assessment: the state of the art. Impact Assess Proj Appraisal. 2012;30(1):43–52. doi: 10.1080/14615517.2012.666035. - DOI
    1. 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. - DOI
    1. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2011.08.006. - DOI
    1. Wendel AM. Establishing the practice of health impact assessment in the United States. J Environ Health. 2012;75(1):32–33. - PubMed
    1. Kemm J. Health Impact Assessment: Past achievements, current understandings, and future progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources