Cargando…

Characteristics of health impact assessments reported in Australia and New Zealand 2005–2009

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: : To describe the use and reporting of Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in Australia and New Zealand between 2005 and 2009. METHODS: : We identified 115 HIAs undertaken in Australia and New Zealand between 2005 and 2009. We reviewed 55 HIAs meeting the study's inclusion crite...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Haigh, Fiona, Harris, Elizabeth, Chok, Harrison NG, Baum, Fran, Harris-Roxas, Ben, Kemp, Lynn, Spickett, Jeff, Keleher, Helen, Morgan, Richard, Harris, Mark, Wendel, Arthur M, Dannenberg, Andrew L
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4673870/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24892152
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12102
_version_ 1782404826484703232
author Haigh, Fiona
Harris, Elizabeth
Chok, Harrison NG
Baum, Fran
Harris-Roxas, Ben
Kemp, Lynn
Spickett, Jeff
Keleher, Helen
Morgan, Richard
Harris, Mark
Wendel, Arthur M
Dannenberg, Andrew L
author_facet Haigh, Fiona
Harris, Elizabeth
Chok, Harrison NG
Baum, Fran
Harris-Roxas, Ben
Kemp, Lynn
Spickett, Jeff
Keleher, Helen
Morgan, Richard
Harris, Mark
Wendel, Arthur M
Dannenberg, Andrew L
author_sort Haigh, Fiona
collection PubMed
description ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: : To describe the use and reporting of Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in Australia and New Zealand between 2005 and 2009. METHODS: : We identified 115 HIAs undertaken in Australia and New Zealand between 2005 and 2009. We reviewed 55 HIAs meeting the study's inclusion criteria to identify characteristics and appraise the quality of the reports. RESULTS: : Of the 55 HIAs, 31 were undertaken in Australia and 24 in New Zealand. The HIAs were undertaken on plans (31), projects (12), programs (6) and policies (6). Compared to Australia, a higher proportion of New Zealand HIAs were on policies and plans and were rapid assessments done voluntarily to support decision-making. In both countries, most HIAs were on land use planning proposals. Overall, 65% of HIA reports were judged to be adequate. CONCLUSION: : This study is the first attempt to empirically investigate the nature of the broad range of HIAs done in Australia and New Zealand and has highlighted the emergence of HIA as a growing area of public health practice. It identifies areas where current practice could be improved and provides a baseline against which future HIA developments can be assessed. IMPLICATIONS: There is evidence that HIA is becoming a part of public health practice in Australia and New Zealand across a wide range of policies, plans and projects. The assessment of quality of reports allows the development of practical suggestions on ways current practice may be improved. The growth of HIA will depend on ongoing organisation and workforce development in both countries.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4673870
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46738702015-12-16 Characteristics of health impact assessments reported in Australia and New Zealand 2005–2009 Haigh, Fiona Harris, Elizabeth Chok, Harrison NG Baum, Fran Harris-Roxas, Ben Kemp, Lynn Spickett, Jeff Keleher, Helen Morgan, Richard Harris, Mark Wendel, Arthur M Dannenberg, Andrew L Aust N Z J Public Health Regional Health ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: : To describe the use and reporting of Health Impact Assessment (HIA) in Australia and New Zealand between 2005 and 2009. METHODS: : We identified 115 HIAs undertaken in Australia and New Zealand between 2005 and 2009. We reviewed 55 HIAs meeting the study's inclusion criteria to identify characteristics and appraise the quality of the reports. RESULTS: : Of the 55 HIAs, 31 were undertaken in Australia and 24 in New Zealand. The HIAs were undertaken on plans (31), projects (12), programs (6) and policies (6). Compared to Australia, a higher proportion of New Zealand HIAs were on policies and plans and were rapid assessments done voluntarily to support decision-making. In both countries, most HIAs were on land use planning proposals. Overall, 65% of HIA reports were judged to be adequate. CONCLUSION: : This study is the first attempt to empirically investigate the nature of the broad range of HIAs done in Australia and New Zealand and has highlighted the emergence of HIA as a growing area of public health practice. It identifies areas where current practice could be improved and provides a baseline against which future HIA developments can be assessed. IMPLICATIONS: There is evidence that HIA is becoming a part of public health practice in Australia and New Zealand across a wide range of policies, plans and projects. The assessment of quality of reports allows the development of practical suggestions on ways current practice may be improved. The growth of HIA will depend on ongoing organisation and workforce development in both countries. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2013-12 2013-09-05 /pmc/articles/PMC4673870/ /pubmed/24892152 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12102 Text en © 2013 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Regional Health
Haigh, Fiona
Harris, Elizabeth
Chok, Harrison NG
Baum, Fran
Harris-Roxas, Ben
Kemp, Lynn
Spickett, Jeff
Keleher, Helen
Morgan, Richard
Harris, Mark
Wendel, Arthur M
Dannenberg, Andrew L
Characteristics of health impact assessments reported in Australia and New Zealand 2005–2009
title Characteristics of health impact assessments reported in Australia and New Zealand 2005–2009
title_full Characteristics of health impact assessments reported in Australia and New Zealand 2005–2009
title_fullStr Characteristics of health impact assessments reported in Australia and New Zealand 2005–2009
title_full_unstemmed Characteristics of health impact assessments reported in Australia and New Zealand 2005–2009
title_short Characteristics of health impact assessments reported in Australia and New Zealand 2005–2009
title_sort characteristics of health impact assessments reported in australia and new zealand 2005–2009
topic Regional Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4673870/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24892152
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12102
work_keys_str_mv AT haighfiona characteristicsofhealthimpactassessmentsreportedinaustraliaandnewzealand20052009
AT harriselizabeth characteristicsofhealthimpactassessmentsreportedinaustraliaandnewzealand20052009
AT chokharrisonng characteristicsofhealthimpactassessmentsreportedinaustraliaandnewzealand20052009
AT baumfran characteristicsofhealthimpactassessmentsreportedinaustraliaandnewzealand20052009
AT harrisroxasben characteristicsofhealthimpactassessmentsreportedinaustraliaandnewzealand20052009
AT kemplynn characteristicsofhealthimpactassessmentsreportedinaustraliaandnewzealand20052009
AT spickettjeff characteristicsofhealthimpactassessmentsreportedinaustraliaandnewzealand20052009
AT keleherhelen characteristicsofhealthimpactassessmentsreportedinaustraliaandnewzealand20052009
AT morganrichard characteristicsofhealthimpactassessmentsreportedinaustraliaandnewzealand20052009
AT harrismark characteristicsofhealthimpactassessmentsreportedinaustraliaandnewzealand20052009
AT wendelarthurm characteristicsofhealthimpactassessmentsreportedinaustraliaandnewzealand20052009
AT dannenbergandrewl characteristicsofhealthimpactassessmentsreportedinaustraliaandnewzealand20052009