Health impact assessment, human rights and global public policy: a critical appraisal

Public policy decisions in both the social and economic spheres have enormous impact on global public health. As a result of this, and of the skewed global distribution of power and resources, health impact assessment (HIA) potentially has a key role to play in foreign policy-making and global public policy-making. Governments, multilateral bodies and transnational corporations need to be held to account for the health impacts of their policies and practices. One route towards achieving this objective involves the inclusion of human rights assessments within HIA. International commitments to human rights instruments and standards can be used as a global auditing tool. Methodological issues may limit the effectiveness of HIA in promoting health equity. These issues include the use of procedures that favour those holding power in the policy process or the use of procedures that fail to apply values of equity and participation. The identification and production of evidence that includes the interests of less powerful groups is a priority for HIA and would be furthered if a human rights-based method of HIA were developed. Because HIA considers all types of policies and examines all potential determinants of health, it can play a part when foreign policy is developed and global decisions are made to treat people as rights holders. Since the human right to health is shaped by the determinants of health, developing links between the right to health assessment (that is, an assessment of the impact of policies on the right to health) and HIA--as recently proposed by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to health--could strengthen the development of foreign policy and global decisions. Such links should be pursued and applied to the development of foreign policy and to the operation of multilateral bodies.     

Comparative assessment of transport risks--how it can contribute to health impact assessment of transport policies

Health impact assessment (HIA) and comparative risk assessment (CRA) are important tools with which governments and communities can compare and integrate different sources of information about various health impacts into a single framework for policy-makers and planners. Both tools have strengths that may be combined usefully when conducting comprehensive assessments of decisions that affect complex health issues, such as the health risks and impacts of transport policy and planning activities. As yet, however, HIA and CRA have not been applied widely to the area of transport. We draw on the limited experience of the application of these tools in the context of road transport to explore how comparative assessment of transport risks can contribute to HIA of transport policies.     

Evaluating health impact assessment

Health impact assessment (HIA) is a developing approach that assesses the health impacts of a proposal on a population, and produces a practical set of recommendations to inform the decision-making process of the proposal. The purpose is to influence decision makers to increase positive health impacts of a proposal and decrease negative impacts. Most work within the HIA field to date has focused on methodological development and actually carrying out HIAs. Little attention has been paid to the formal evaluation of the HIA approach and whether or not HIA works (if and how the HIA approach informs the decision-making process and, in particular, if it contributes to improving health and reducing inequalities). With the drive towards evidence-informed policy, HIA also needs to show whether it adds value to the decision-making process, given the significant resources often involved in carrying out an HIA. A suggested approach to evaluating HIAs is presented, as well as its relationship with monitoring, drawing on the significant public health evaluation literature that already exists. Methodologies appropriate for use, and examples of indicators suitable for HIA evaluation, are provided. We suggest that typical HIA evaluations should focus on the process of the HIA and the impact that it has on the decision-making process, rather than attempting to evaluate long-term health outcomes or whether predicted impacts actually occurred.     

Concepts and theory of health impact assessment

Health effects are often overlooked in the planning of policies, programmes or projects, which has led to international and national pressure for evaluation of potential influence. For this reason, Health Impact Assessment (HIA) has been emphasized by many national governments and international organizations such as the European Union and WHO. HIA is a helpful decision-making tool with methodology that was defined as "a combination of procedures, methods, and tools by which a policy, a program or a project may be judged as to its potential effects on health of a population and the distribution of effects within the population" in the WHO Gothenburg paper. In recent decades, many HIAs have been implemented for proposals including building new airports, dams, employment strategy, and housing policy. However, there is very little information on HIA in Japan, even among public health professionals and policy makers. In this review, we introduce basic concepts and theory, and discuss how to improve HIA activities in Japan.     

Implementation of a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) tool in a regional health organization in Sweden--a feasibility study

During the last decade, Health Impact Assessment (HIA) has been discussed worldwide as being an important tool for the development of healthy public policy. In Sweden, the Swedish Federation of County Councils and the Swedish Association of Local Authorities have taken the initiative to and are responsible for the development of an HIA tool concerning proposed policy decisions at local and regional levels. The HIA tool was developed as three different templates to be adapted to local conditions and needs: the Health Question, the Health Matrix and the Health Impact Analysis. In this paper we present a feasibility study of the experiences of implementing this HIA tool at regional level in a Health Care District (SWHCD) of Stockholm County Council, based on an inductive approach and on principles of data triangulation. The main findings include the need for continuous revision of the HIA templates during the pilot period. The following factors were instrumental in successfully using the HIA tool in local policy making and management: political consensus, agreement between politicians and public officials on political intentions, a clear- cut decision from management, and offering an opportunity for training. Respondents felt that all public officials should use the HIA as part of their normal work routines. In conclusion, the HIA tool has to be locally adapted and the implementation process has to include close collaboration between politicians and public officials and be followed by continuing education, providing possibilities for a dialogue around the HIA tool, in order to ensure the quality of the instrument. Implications of the study are that the process of developing the tool has worked well but that the possible impacts of its use in this case remain an open question. However, this was not the focus of our study.     

Use of health impact assessment in incorporating health considerations in decision making

STUDY AIM: The aim of this project is to identify from a range of sources the factors associated with the success of a health impact assessment (HIA) in integrating health considerations into the final decision and implementation of a planned policy, programme, or project. DESIGN: Three methods were adopted: (a) a review of HIA case studies; (b) a review of commentaries, reviews and discussion papers relating to HIA and decision making; and (c) an email survey of a purposive sample of HIA academics, HIA practitioners, and policymakers. Information was captured on the following characteristics: information on the year undertaken; geopolitical level; setting; sector; HIA type; methods and techniques used; identification of assessors. MAIN RESULTS: Two groups of factors were identified relating to the decision making environment and to the technical conduct of the HIA. With regard to the environment, striking a balance between decision maker ownership and HIA credibility; organisational, statutory and policy commitment to HIA, and the provision of realistic, non-controversial recommendations were cited as enablers to the integration of HIA findings into the decision making process. Barriers included a lack of knowledge of the policymaking environment by those conducting HIA. Regarding factors relating to the conduct of the HIA: use of a consistent methodological approach; inclusion of empirical evidence on health impacts; timing of the HIA congruent with the decision making process; involvement of expert HIA assessors; and shaping of recommendations to reflect organisational priorities were cited as enablers while lack of a standardised methodology; lack of resources and use of jargon were cited as barriers. CONCLUSIONS: The findings emphasise the importance of considering the politico-administrative environment in which HIA operates. The extent to which HIA fits the requirements of organisations and decision makers may be as important as the technical methods adopted to undertake it.     

Qualitative and quantitative approaches to health impact assessment: An analysis of the political and philosophical milieu of the multi-method approach

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is a relatively new, but increasingly important, contributor to both local and national decision-making processes. Adopting a multi-method approach, it incorporates qualitative and quantitative analyses to determine the various health impacts of policies and projects. HIA thus reflects recent developments in sociological theory, which have promoted qualitative techniques and challenged the dominance of quantitative methods. HIA embodies a particular renegotiation of the qualitative/quantitative opposition; each individual HIA represents an empirical instance of this renegotiation. As such, HIA can be conceptualized as a kind of ‘political space’, in which the opposition in question is structured by various social forces and plays out in concrete ways. Moreover, and notwithstanding the supposed methodological rapprochement, an analysis of a number of HIAs claims to expose a continuing, but perhaps unsurprising, privilege in favour of quantitative methods. In the first place, the paper contends that closer examination reveals this privileging to be unjustified, both empirically and theoretically, and alternative methodological and epistemological configurations are suggested accordingly. Specific gestures are made in this respect toward the work of Martin Heidegger and Jacques Derrida. In particular, the paper argues for a broad hermeneutic approach that both encompasses and situates the methodological tensions HIA stages. Second, attention is drawn to the fact that various and particular sociopolitical conditions maintain the characteristic architecture of the opposition. The political importance of HIA across a series of key issues is underscored in support of a more radical interpretation. For once situated within its wider cultural context, HIA ceases to resemble some straightforwardly neutral technology for health protection and delivery. If, instead, one reads it as an indicative micropolitical phenomenon, then one can begin to interrogate this simple policy tool in more complex ways. HIA both reveals, and is implicated in, a more fundamental and diffuse process that is presently resisting, undermining and regenerating traditional power distributions within the administration of health and beyond. The paper implicitly argues that HIA can only be properly understood within this context and, equally, allows one a certain analytical access to this context.     

Assessing the unintended health impacts of road transport policies and interventions: translating research evidence for use in policy and practice

Background  

Transport and its links to health and health inequalities suggest that it is important to assess both the direct and unintended indirect health and related impacts of transport initiatives and policies. Health Impact Assessment (HIA) provides a framework to assess the possible health impacts of interventions such as transport. Policymakers and practitioners need access to well conducted research syntheses if research evidence is to be used to inform these assessments. The predictive validity of HIA depends heavily on the use and careful interpretation of supporting empirical evidence. Reviewing and digesting the vast volume and diversity of evidence in a field such as transport is likely to be beyond the scope of most HIAs. Collaborations between HIA practitioners and specialist reviewers to develop syntheses of best available evidence applied specifically to HIA could promote the use of evidence in practice.     

Health impact assessment as an agent of policy change: improving the health impacts of the mayor of London's draft transport strategy

OBJECTIVE: To increase the positive and mitigate the negative health impacts of the mayor's draft transport strategy for London. DESIGN: A rapid prospective health impact assessment (HIA) of the penultimate draft of the strategy, using a review commissioned by the regional director of public health; an appraisal of congestion charging; and a participatory workshop. Two audits of changes were performed to assess the impact on policy of the HIA process. SETTING: Regional government policy development. INTERVENTION: Recommendations from the rapid HIA were fed back into the drafting process. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Changes (a) between the penultimate draft and the draft for public consultation and (b) between that and the final mayoral strategy. RESULTS: The draft transport strategy published for consultation differed in a number of respects from the previous version. Almost all the recommendations from the HIA were incorporated into the final strategy. Significant changes included promoting sustainable travel plans for workplaces and schools; giving priority to infrastructure and services that benefit London's deprived communities; increased emphasis on promoting walking and cycling and reducing reliance on private cars; and a commitment to track the health impacts of the final strategy and its implementation. Specific additions included re-allocating road space. CONCLUSION: HIA was successful in influencing the transport strategy for London, resulting in several improvements from a health viewpoint. HIA is an effective method both for bringing about significant change in policy proposals and in increasing policy makers' understanding of determinants of health and hence in changing attitudes of policy makers.     

Engaging communities to tackle anti-social behaviour: a health impact assessment of a citizens' jury

OBJECTIVES: To carry out a health impact assessment (HIA) of the Netherley Valley Citizens' Jury that was set up to develop recommendations for how anti-social behaviour should be addressed in their community. STUDY DESIGN: Concurrent HIA based on the Merseyside Guidelines for HIA and the European Policy HIA Guidelines. METHODS: Literature reviews, community profiling, and interviews and workshops with stakeholders and key informants were undertaken. RESULTS: A wide range of positive and negative impacts were identified, and 20 recommendations were developed to suggest ways of maximizing the potential positive impacts on health and wellbeing and minimizing the negative impacts. CONCLUSIONS: This HIA provided a unique opportunity to compare predicted and actual health impacts, which illustrates the importance of assessing the potential impacts of processes as well as intended outcomes. It also highlighted some of the potential risks involved in engaging with communities, and reinforced the value of assessing the potential impacts on health of policies, programmes and projects that may intuitively appear to be beneficial to all involved.     

国际健康影响评价的制度建设：从政策到法律

健康影响评价来源于环境影响评价，“健康的公共政策”运动促进其进一步发展。世界各国的健康影响评价工作主要由公共卫生部门、非政府组织或者国际组织主导，应用于政策、规划和项目三个层面，以系统地评价其带来的潜在健康风险。健康影响评价广泛涉及环境、产业、社会以及城市化等多种领域，是一种多学科、跨部门的影响评价工具。健康影响评价按时间顺序分为前瞻性健康影响评价、回顾性健康影响评价和和即时性健康影响评价。从国际经验来看，健康影响评价立法大致分为三类：一是国家宪法先行，如泰国。二是地方立法先行，如加拿大和澳大利亚。三是环境影响评价立法中包含健康影响评价的条款，这是美国等世界大部分国家通行的一种健康影响评价立法方式。建议我国健康影响评价立法，可以针对国家可持续发展议程创新示范区、高风险行业如火电等行业、重大影响的项目、规划或者政策开展。     

Developing principles for health impact assessment.

BACKGROUND: Policies and practice in many sectors affect health. Health impact assessment (HIA) is a way to predict these health impacts, in order to recommend improvements in policies to improve health. There has been debate about appropriate methods for this work. The Scottish Executive funded the Scottish Needs Assessment Programme to conduct two pilot HIAs and from these to develop guidance on HIA. METHODS: Case study 1 compared three possible future scenarios for developing transport in Edinburgh, based on funding levels. It used a literature review, analysis of local data and the knowledge and opinions of key informants. Impacts borne by different population groups.were compared using grids. Case study 2 assessed the health impacts of housing investment in a disadvantaged part of Edinburgh, using published literature, focus groups with community groups and interviews with professionals. RESULTS: Disadvantaged communities bore more detrimental effects from the low transport investment scenario, in the areas of: accidents; pollution; access to amenities, jobs and social contacts; physical activity; and impacts on community networks. The housing investment had greatest impact on residents' mental health, by reducing overcrowding, noise pollution, stigma and fear of crime. CONCLUSION: Although there is no single 'blueprint' for HIA that will be appropriate for all circumstances, key principles to inform future HIA were defined. HIA should be systematic; involve decision-makers and affected communities; take into account local factors; use evidence and methods appropriate to the impacts identified and the importance and scope of the policy; and make practical recommendations.     

What do we need for robust, quantitative health impact assessment?

Health impact assessment (HIA) aims to make the health consequences of decisions explicit. Decision-makers need to know that the conclusions of HIA are robust. Quantified estimates of potential health impacts may be more influential but there are a number of concerns. First, not everything that can be quantified is important. Second, not everything that is being quantified at present should be, if this cannot be done robustly. Finally, not everything that is important can be quantified: rigorous qualitative HIA will still be needed for a thorough assessment. This paper presents the first published attempt to provide practical guidance on what is required to perform robust, quantitative HIA. Initial steps include profiling the affected populations, obtaining evidence for postulated impacts, and determining how differences in subgroups' exposures and susceptibilities affect impacts. Using epidemiological evidence for HIA is different from carrying out a new study. Key steps in quantifying impacts are mapping the causal pathway, selecting appropriate outcome measures and selecting or developing a statistical model. Evidence from different sources is needed. For many health impacts, evidence of an effect may be scarce and estimates of the size and nature of the relationship may be inadequate. Assumptions and uncertainties must therefore be explicit. Modelled data can sometimes be tested against empirical data but sensitivity analyses are crucial. When scientific problems occur, discontinuing the study is not an option, as HIA is usually intended to inform real decisions. Both qualitative and quantitative elements of HIA must be performed robustly to be of value.     

Soft data,hard effects. Strategies for effective policy on health impact assessment--an example from the Netherlands

Health impact assessment (HIA) on a strategic level focuses on the broad determinants of health. However, the evidence with regard to the health impacts is often necessarily 'soft'. The example of a health impact review on national housing policy in the Netherlands shows that HIA can be effective even in the absence of hard data. Strategies used to overcome the problem of not having hard data are outlined. The authors argue that, for HIA to be effective, it does not necessarily have to be limited to easy-to-measure, easy-to-quantify programmes and health effects.     

Framing health and foreign policy: lessons for global health diplomacy

Global health financing has increased dramatically in recent years, indicative of a rise in health as a foreign policy issue. Several governments have issued specific foreign policy statements on global health and a new term, global health diplomacy, has been coined to describe the processes by which state and non-state actors engage to position health issues more prominently in foreign policy decision-making. Their ability to do so is important to advancing international cooperation in health. In this paper we review the arguments for health in foreign policy that inform global health diplomacy. These are organized into six policy frames: security, development, global public goods, trade, human rights and ethical/moral reasoning. Each of these frames has implications for how global health as a foreign policy issue is conceptualized. Differing arguments within and between these policy frames, while overlapping, can also be contradictory. This raises an important question about which arguments prevail in actual state decision-making. This question is addressed through an analysis of policy or policy-related documents and academic literature pertinent to each policy framing with some assessment of policy practice. The reference point for this analysis is the explicit goal of improving global health equity. This goal has increasing national traction within national public health discourse and decision-making and, through the Millennium Development Goals and other multilateral reports and declarations, is entering global health policy discussion. Initial findings support conventional international relations theory that most states, even when committed to health as a foreign policy goal, still make decisions primarily on the basis of the 'high politics' of national security and economic material interests. Development, human rights and ethical/moral arguments for global health assistance, the traditional 'low politics' of foreign policy, are present in discourse but do not appear to dominate practice. While political momentum for health as a foreign policy goal persists, the framing of this goal remains a contested issue. The analysis offered in this article may prove helpful to those engaged in global health diplomacy or in efforts to have global governance across a range of sectoral interests pay more attention to health equity impacts.     

Introduction of health impact assessment and healthy cities as a tool for tackling health inequality]

In order to reduce the health inequalities within a society changes need to be made in broad health determinants and their distribution in the population. It has been expected that the Health impact assessment(HIA) and Healthy Cities can provide opportunities and useful means for changing social policy and environment related with the broad health determinants in developed countries. HIA is any combination of procedures or methods by which a proposed 4P(policy, plan, program, project) may be judged as to the effects it may have on the health of a population. Healthy city is one that is continually creating and improving those physical and social environments and expanding those community resources which enable people to mutually support each other in performing all the functions of life and in developing to their maximum potential. In Korea, social and academic interest regarding the HIA and Healthy Cities has been growing recently but the need of HIA and Healthy Cities in the perspective of reducing health inequality was not introduced adequately. So we reviewed the basic concepts and methods of the HIA and Healthy Cities, and its possible contribution to reducing health inequalities. We concluded that though the concepts and methods of the HIA and Healthy Cities are relatively new and still in need of improvement, they will be useful in approaching the issue of health inequality in Korea.     

Towards health impact assessment of drinking-water privatization--the example of waterborne carcinogens in North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany)

Worldwide there is a tendency towards deregulation in many policy sectors - this, for example, includes liberalization and privatization of drinking-water management. However, concerns about the negative impacts this might have on human health call for prospective health impact assessment (HIA) on the management of drinking-water. On the basis of an established generic 10-step HIA procedure and on risk assessment methodology, this paper aims to produce quantitative estimates concerning health effects from increased exposure to carcinogens in drinking-water. Using data from North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany, probabilistic estimates of excess lifetime cancer risk, as well as estimates of additional cases of cancer from increased carcinogen exposure levels are presented. The results show how exposure to contaminants that are strictly within current limits could increase cancer risks and case-loads substantially. On the basis of the current analysis, we suggest that with uniform increases in pollutant levels, a single chemical (arsenic) is responsible for a large fraction of expected additional risk. The study also illustrates the uncertainty involved in predicting the health impacts of changes in water quality. Future analysis should include additional carcinogens, non-cancer risks including those due to microbial contamination, and the impacts of system failures and of illegal action, which may be increasingly likely to occur under changed management arrangements. If, in spite of concerns, water is privatized, it is particularly important to provide adequate surveillance of water quality.     

健康影响评估制度的理论演进、评价方法与实现路径

健康影响评估是判断政策、规划、计划和项目对人群健康潜在影响及其影响分布的程序、方法和工具.许多国家将其作为推动"健康融入所有政策"的有效治理工具.新型冠状病毒肺炎(COVID-19)疫情对我国政府治理体系和治理能力提出巨大挑战,突显卫生健康对国民经济的重要影响,突显构建健康优先治理体系的紧迫要求.我国《基本医疗卫生与健...     

Transport policy and health inequalities: a health impact assessment of Edinburgh's transport policy

Health impact assessment (HIA) can be used to examine the relationships between inequalities and health. This HIA of Edinburgh's transport policy demonstrates how HIA can examine how different transport policies can affect different population groupings to varying degrees. In this case, Edinburgh's economy is based on tourism, financial services and Government bodies. These need a good transport infrastructure, which maintains a vibrant city centre. A transport policy that promotes walking, cycling and public transport supports this and is also good for health. The HIA suggested that greater spend on public transport and supporting sustainable modes of transport was beneficial to health, and offered scope to reduce inequalities. This message was understood by the City Council and influenced the development of the city's transport and land-use strategies. The paper discusses how HIA can influence public policy.     

Assessing health impact assessment: multidisciplinary and international perspectives

Health impact assessment (HIA) seeks to expand evaluation of policy and programmes in all sectors, both private and public, to include their impact on population health. While the idea that the public's health is affected by a broad array of social and economic policies is not new and dates back well over two centuries, what is new is the notion-increasingly adopted by major health institutions, such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the United Kingdom National Health Services (NHS)-that health should be an explicit consideration when evaluating all public policies. In this article, it is argued that while HIA has the potential to enhance recognition of societal determinants of health and of intersectoral responsibility for health, its pitfalls warrant critical attention. Greater clarity is required regarding criteria for initiating, conducting, and completing HIA, including rules pertaining to decision making, enforcement, compliance, plus paying for their conduct. Critical debate over the promise, process, and pitfalls of HIA needs to be informed by multiple disciplines and perspectives from diverse people and regions of the world.