Health Impact Assessments in Spain: Have They Been Effective?
effectiveness
health impact assessment
intersectoral action for health
Journal
International journal of environmental research and public health
ISSN: 1660-4601
Titre abrégé: Int J Environ Res Public Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101238455
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 04 2020
24 04 2020
Historique:
received:
22
03
2020
revised:
18
04
2020
accepted:
20
04
2020
entrez:
30
4
2020
pubmed:
30
4
2020
medline:
2
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Health impact assessment (HIA) has scarcely been developed in Spain, in comparison with other European countries. Moreover, little is known about the effectiveness of HIA, taking into account direct impacts-changes on the decision-making process-as well as indirect impacts or those related to the process outcomes. From this broad perspective of HIA usefulness, the purpose was to assess the effectiveness of five HIAs carried out in Spain at the local level, and the role played by context and process factors on these impacts. We carried out a qualitative study based on 14 interviews to HIAs participants from different sectors. A documentary review and nonparticipant observation techniques were implemented for an in depth understanding. The direct effectiveness of the HIAs was partial, but they had indirect effectiveness in all cases. The institutional and socio-political context, however, was not favorable to effectiveness. The elements of the process were largely determined by the context, although their influence, mediated by the role of proactive individuals, favored the effectiveness of the HIAs. When assessing HIA effectiveness, it is important to take into account a broad perspective on the nature of impacts and those factors influencing direct and indirect effectiveness. In Spain, the institutional and sociopolitical context was less favorable to HIA effectiveness than process-related factors. In order to implement the Health in All Policies strategy, will be necessary to improve context-related factors, such as institutional facilitators for HIA and democratic quality.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Health impact assessment (HIA) has scarcely been developed in Spain, in comparison with other European countries. Moreover, little is known about the effectiveness of HIA, taking into account direct impacts-changes on the decision-making process-as well as indirect impacts or those related to the process outcomes. From this broad perspective of HIA usefulness, the purpose was to assess the effectiveness of five HIAs carried out in Spain at the local level, and the role played by context and process factors on these impacts.
METHODS
We carried out a qualitative study based on 14 interviews to HIAs participants from different sectors. A documentary review and nonparticipant observation techniques were implemented for an in depth understanding.
RESULTS
The direct effectiveness of the HIAs was partial, but they had indirect effectiveness in all cases. The institutional and socio-political context, however, was not favorable to effectiveness. The elements of the process were largely determined by the context, although their influence, mediated by the role of proactive individuals, favored the effectiveness of the HIAs.
CONCLUSIONS
When assessing HIA effectiveness, it is important to take into account a broad perspective on the nature of impacts and those factors influencing direct and indirect effectiveness. In Spain, the institutional and sociopolitical context was less favorable to HIA effectiveness than process-related factors. In order to implement the Health in All Policies strategy, will be necessary to improve context-related factors, such as institutional facilitators for HIA and democratic quality.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32344776
pii: ijerph17082959
doi: 10.3390/ijerph17082959
pmc: PMC7216190
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Références
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006 Mar;60(3):196-201
pubmed: 16476747
Public Health. 2005 Dec;119(12):1122-9
pubmed: 16329170
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015 Apr 03;12(4):3847-52
pubmed: 25854299
Health Promot Int. 2015 Jun;30 Suppl 1:i32-i44
pubmed: 26069316
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2010 Nov;64(11):950-5
pubmed: 19934171
BMC Public Health. 2014 Jul 09;14:699
pubmed: 25005916
BMC Public Health. 2013 Dec 17;13:1188
pubmed: 24341545
BMJ. 2020 Feb 24;368:m693
pubmed: 32094110
Soc Sci Med. 2014 May;108:46-53
pubmed: 24608119
Lancet. 2010 Jun 19;375(9732):2129-31
pubmed: 20609938
Health Policy. 2018 Mar;122(3):284-292
pubmed: 29305241
Gac Sanit. 2014 Nov-Dec;28(6):442-9
pubmed: 25107835
BMC Public Health. 2015 Oct 03;15:1009
pubmed: 26433492
Prev Chronic Dis. 2016 Jun 30;13:E84
pubmed: 27362932
Prev Chronic Dis. 2015 Feb 19;12:E23
pubmed: 25695261
Int J Equity Health. 2016 Sep 15;15(1):145
pubmed: 27628650
Gac Sanit. 2013 May-Jun;27(3):233-40
pubmed: 23057971
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2017 Apr;41(2):204-209
pubmed: 27774688