A systematic review of whether Health Impact Assessment frameworks support best practice principles

• Published in: Public health (London) 2024-08, Vol.233, p.137-144
• Main Authors: McDermott, R., Douglas, M.J., Haigh, F., Takemon, N., Green, L.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Best practice principles; Health Impact Assessment (HIA); Systematic review
• ISSN: 0033-3506; 1476-5616; 1476-5616
• DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2024.05.008

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is an evidence-based approach to assess the likely public health impacts of a policy or plan in any sector. Several HIA frameworks are available to guide practitioners doing a HIA. This systematic review sought to determine whether these support practitioners to meet best practice principles defined by the International Association for Impact Assessment. This was a systematic review. Three complementary search strategies were used to identify frameworks in June 2022. We used three databases to find completed HIAs published in the last five years and hand-searched their reference lists for frameworks. We also searched 23 HIA repositories using Google's Advanced function and contacted HIA practitioners via two international mailing lists. We used a bespoke quality appraisal tool to assess frameworks against the principles. The search identified 24 HIA frameworks. None of the frameworks achieved a ‘good’ rating for all best practice principles. Many identified the principles but did not provide guidance on how to meet them at all HIA steps. The highest number of frameworks were rated ‘good’ for ethical use of evidence and comprehensive approach to health (n = 15). Eight frameworks were rated as ‘good’ for participation, and two for equity. The highest number of frameworks rated ‘poor’ for sustainability (n = 11). There is marked variation in the degree to which HIA frameworks support the best practice principles. HIA practitioners could select elements from different frameworks for practical guidance to meet all the best practice principles.