Message

On Tuesday October 24th between 7am and 9am, we will carry out scheduled maintenance of the network. During this period of time, there may be potential outages, and the repository may be unavailable.

Thank you for your attention. We apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Improving the use of evidence in health impact assessment

Mindell, Jennifer, Biddulph, Jane, Taylor, Lorraine, Lock, Karen, Boaz, Annette, Joffe, Michael and Curtis, Sarah (2009) Improving the use of evidence in health impact assessment. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 88(7), pp. 543-550. ISSN (print) 0042-9686

Full text not available from this archive.

Abstract

Abstract OBJECTIVE: Health impact assessment (HIA) has been proposed as one mechanism that can inform decision-making by public policy-makers. However, HIA methodology has been criticized for a lack of rigour in its use of evidence. The aim of this work was to formulate, develop and test a practical guide to reviewing publicly available evidence for use in HIA. The term evidence includes all scientific assessments, whether research studies in peer-reviewed journals or previous HIAs. METHODS: The formulation and development of the guide involved substantial background research, qualitative research with the target audience, substantial consultations with potential users and other stakeholders, a pilot study to explore content, format and usability, and peer review. Finally, the guide was tested in practice by invited volunteers who used it to appraise existing HIA evidence reviews. FINDINGS: During development, a wealth of data was generated on how the guide might be applied in practice, on terminology, on ensuring clarity of the text and on additional resources needed. The final guide provides advice on reviewing quantitative and qualitative research in plain language and is suitable for those working in public health but who may not have experience in reviewing evidence. During testing, it enabled users to discriminate between satisfactory and unsatisfactory evidence reviews. By late 2009, 1700 printed and 2500 downloaded copies of the guide had been distributed. CONCLUSION: Substantive and iterative consultation, though time-consuming, was pivotal to producing a simple, systematic and accessible guide to reviewing publicly available research evidence for use in HIA. PMID: 20616974 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] PMCID: PMC2897984 Free PMC Article

Item Type: Article
Research Area: Allied health professions and studies
Nursing and midwifery
Faculty, School or Research Centre: Faculty of Health and Social Care Sciences (until 2013)
Related URLs:
Depositing User: Simon Collins
Date Deposited: 08 Apr 2013 09:47
Last Modified: 08 Apr 2013 09:47
URI: http://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/id/eprint/25305

Actions (Repository Editors)

Item Control Page Item Control Page