↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What makes health impact assessments successful? Factors contributing to effectiveness in Australia and New Zealand
Published in
BMC Public Health, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2319-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fiona Haigh, Elizabeth Harris, Ben Harris-Roxas, Fran Baum, Andrew L. Dannenberg, Mark F. Harris, Helen Keleher, Lynn Kemp, Richard Morgan, Harrison NG Chok, Jeff Spickett

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 2 20%
Student > Bachelor 2 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 20%
Student > Postgraduate 1 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 10%
Other 2 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 3 30%
Social Sciences 3 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 20%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 10%
Engineering 1 10%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 April 2016.
All research outputs
#1,161,951
of 13,221,044 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,388
of 9,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,547
of 251,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,221,044 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,104 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 251,074 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them