Enhancing the evidence base for health impact assessment

• Published in: Journal of epidemiology and community health (1979) Vol. 58; no. 7; pp. 546 - 551
• Main Authors: Mindell, J, Boaz, A, Joffe, M, Curtis, S, Birley, M
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 01.07.2004; BMJ Publishing Group; BMJ; BMJ Publishing Group LTD; BMJ Group
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Community health; Decision Making; Environmental policy; Epidemiology; Evidence Based Public Health Policy and Practice; Evidence-based medicine; Evidence-Based Medicine - methods; guidelines; Health disparities; health impact assessment; Health outcomes; Health Services Research; Health Status; Health Status Indicators; Humans; Intervention; Medical practice; Medical sciences; methodology; Miscellaneous; Observational research; Outcome Assessment (Health Care); Psychoeducational intervention; Public health; Public health. Hygiene; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine; Range searching; Recommendations; Risk assessment; Risk Assessment - methods; Risk reduction; systematic review; United Kingdom > UK; Performance evaluation; Medicine; Evaluation; Sanitary program; Health policy; Scientific research; Critical study; Community health; Public health
• ISSN: 0143-005X; 1470-2738
• DOI: 10.1136/jech.2003.012401

Health impact assessment differs from other purposes for which evidence is collated in a number of ways, including: the focus on complex interventions or policy and their diverse effects on determinants of health; the need for evidence on the reversibility of adverse factors damaging to health; the diversity of the evidence in terms of relevant disciplines, study designs, quality criteria and sources of information; the broad range of stakeholders involved; the short timescale and limited resources generally available; the pragmatic need to inform decision makers regardless of the quality of the evidence. These have implications for commissioning and conducting reviews. Methods must be developed to: facilitate comprehensive searching across a broad range of disciplines and information sources; collate appropriate quality criteria to assess a range of study designs; synthesise different kinds of evidence; and facilitate timely stakeholder involvement. Good practice standards for reviews are needed to reduce the risk of poor quality recommendations. Advice to decision makers must make explicit limitations resulting from absent, conflicting, or poor quality evidence.