Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Health Impact Assessment (HIA) advances Health in All Policies by identifying impacts of proposed actions on health and equity and recommending changes to address these impacts. Since the Gothenburg Consensus Statement in 1999, HIA has been applied to policies, plans, programmes and projects in multiple sectors and settings across the world. Despite demonstrated effectiveness, its use across the world is inconsistent with few nations systematically using HIA. In a global context of increasing health inequities, pandemics, climate change, and economic crises, HIA can help integrate health and equity into decision making. There is a need for research to support the ongoing evolution and development of HIA. This paper presents a research agenda for the field of HIA. Methods We used a mixed method approach utilising insights of approximately 280 participants through an international online survey and participatory workshops. We compared priority areas of research identified through the survey, workshops, and literature review to inform the development of a research agenda. The team drew on their own positioning and experience as HIA practitioners and researchers to shape this agenda. Results We identified four research priorities: (1) Institutionalisation - Sustaining and institutionalising HIA in varying contexts and levels. (2) Influence - Identifying mechanisms and strategies that can be employed to effectively influence stakeholders and decision making. (3) Equity and Participation - Analysing the role of equity, justice, power and participation in HIA, and (4) Methodology - Improving HIA Methods to understand the complex relationships between proposed actions, health and health equity outcomes and identifying what to do. We developed research questions for each theme. Conclusions The research agenda advocates for sustained research and practice to strengthen impact and address knowledge gaps in the field. Functioning as a roadmap for both researchers and funders, it aims to contribute to a healthier and more equitable world. Recognising the valuable role of HIA in addressing global health challenges, the agenda encourages researchers to investigate, develop, and advance the field of HIA.

Several recent publications reflect debate on the issue of “endocrine disrupting chemicals” (EDCs), indicating that two seemingly mutually exclusive perspectives are being articulated separately and independently. Considering this, a group of scientists with expertise in basic science, medicine and risk assessment reviewed the various aspects of the debate to identify the most significant areas of dispute and to propose a path forward. We identified four areas of debate. The first is about the definitions for terms such as “endocrine disrupting chemical”, “adverse effects”, and “endocrine system”. The second is focused on elements of hormone action including “potency”, “endpoints”, “timing”, “dose” and “thresholds”. The third addresses the information needed to establish sufficient evidence of harm. Finally, the fourth focuses on the need to develop and the characteristics of transparent, systematic methods to review the EDC literature. Herein we identify areas of general consensus and propose resolutions for these four areas that would allow the field to move beyond the current and, in our opinion, ineffective debate.

Policies that stimulate active transportation (walking and bicycling) have been related to heath benefits. This study aims to assess the potential health risks and benefits of promoting active transportation for commuting populations (age groups 16-64) in six European cities. We conducted a health impact assessment using two scenarios: increased cycling and increased walking. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality related to changes in physical activity level, exposure to fine particulate matter air pollution with a diameter <2.5 μm, as well as traffic fatalities in the cities of Barcelona, Basel, Copenhagen, Paris, Prague, and Warsaw. All scenarios produced health benefits in the six cities. An increase in bicycle trips to 35% of all trips (as in Copenhagen) produced the highest benefits among the different scenarios analysed in Warsaw 113 (76-163) annual deaths avoided, Prague 61 (29-104), Barcelona 37 (24-56), Paris 37 (18-64) and Basel 5 (3-9). An increase in walking trips to 50% of all trips (as in Paris) resulted in 19 (3-42) deaths avoided annually in Warsaw, 11(3-21) in Prague, 6 (4-9) in Basel, 3 (2-6) in Copenhagen and 3 (2-4) in Barcelona. The scenarios would also reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the six cities by 1,139 to 26,423 (metric tonnes per year). Policies to promote active transportation may produce health benefits, but these depend of the existing characteristics of the cities. Increased collaboration between health practitioners, transport specialists and urban planners will help to introduce the health perspective in transport policies and promote active transportation.

Multiple Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines appear to be safe and efficacious, but only high-income countries have the resources to procure sufficient vaccine doses for most of their eligible populations. The World Health Organization has published guidelines for vaccine prioritisation, but most vaccine impact projections have focused on high-income countries, and few incorporate economic considerations. To address this evidence gap, we projected the health and economic impact of different vaccination scenarios in Sindh Province, Pakistan (population: 48 million). We fitted a compartmental transmission model to COVID-19 cases and deaths in Sindh from 30 April to 15 September 2020. We then projected cases, deaths, and hospitalisation outcomes over 10 years under different vaccine scenarios. Finally, we combined these projections with a detailed economic model to estimate incremental costs (from healthcare and partial societal perspectives), disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for each scenario. We project that 1 year of vaccine distribution, at delivery rates consistent with COVAX projections, using an infection-blocking vaccine at $3/dose with 70% efficacy and 2.5-year duration of protection is likely to avert around 0.9 (95% credible interval (CrI): 0.9, 1.0) million cases, 10.1 (95% CrI: 10.1, 10.3) thousand deaths, and 70.1 (95% CrI: 69.9, 70.6) thousand DALYs, with an ICER of $27.9 per DALY averted from the health system perspective. Under a broad range of alternative scenarios, we find that initially prioritising the older (65+) population generally prevents more deaths. However, unprioritised distribution has almost the same cost-effectiveness when considering all outcomes, and both prioritised and unprioritised programmes can be cost-effective for low per-dose costs. High vaccine prices ($10/dose), however, may not be cost-effective, depending on the specifics of vaccine performance, distribution programme, and future pandemic trends. The principal drivers of the health outcomes are the fitted values for the overall transmission scaling parameter and disease natural history parameters from other studies, particularly age-specific probabilities of infection and symptomatic disease, as well as social contact rates. Other parameters are investigated in sensitivity analyses. This study is limited by model approximations, available data, and future uncertainty. Because the model is a single-population compartmental model, detailed impacts of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as household isolation cannot be practically represented or evaluated in combination with vaccine programmes. Similarly, the model cannot consider prioritising groups like healthcare or other essential workers. The model is only fitted to the reported case and death data, which are incomplete and not disaggregated by, e.g., age. Finally, because the future impact and implementation cost of NPIs are uncertain, how these would interact with vaccination remains an open question. COVID-19 vaccination can have a considerable health impact and is likely to be cost-effective if more optimistic vaccine scenarios apply. Preventing severe disease is an important contributor to this impact. However, the advantage of prioritising older, high-risk populations is smaller in generally younger populations. This reduction is especially true in populations with more past transmission, and if the vaccine is likely to further impede transmission rather than just disease. Those conditions are typical of many low- and middle-income countries.

In the advanced cancer setting, patients, families, and clinicians are often confronted with an uncertain future regarding treatment outcomes and survival. Greater certainty on what to expect can enhance decision-making for many personal and healthcare issues. Although 70–90% of patients with advanced cancer desire open and honest prognostic disclosure, a small proportion do not want to know. Approximately half of patients with advanced cancer have an inaccurate understanding of their illness, which could negatively impact their decision-making. In this review, we use a conceptual framework to highlight 5 key steps along the prognostic continuum, including (1) prognostic formulation, (2) prognostic disclosure, (3) prognostic awareness, (4) prognostic acceptance, and (5) prognosis-based decision-making. We shall summarize the impact of prognostic predictions, disclosure, awareness, and acceptance on various patient and caregiver outcomes, such as hope, trust, anxiety, depression, chemotherapy use, and care planning. Based on where the patient is at along the prognostic continuum, we propose 5 different subgroups (avoidance: “I don’t want to know”; discordant, “I never wanted to know”; anxious, “I don’t know what’s happening”; concerned, “I don’t like this”; acceptance, “I know how to plan ahead”). Although prognostication is not necessarily a linear process, recognizing where the patient is at cognitively and emotionally along the prognostic continuum may allow clinicians to provide personalized interventions, such as specialist palliative care and psychology referral, towards personalizing prognostic disclosure, enhancing prognostic awareness, increasing prognostic acceptance, and supporting decision-making and, ultimately, improving patient outcomes.

The World Health Organization's Commission on Social Determinants of Health has called for 'health equity impact assessments' of all economic agreements, market regulation and public policies. We carried out an international study to clarify if existing health impact assessment (HIA) methods are adequate for the task of global health equity assessments. We triangulated data from a scoping review of the international literature, in-depth interviews with health equity and HIA experts and an international stakeholder workshop. We found that equity is not addressed adequately in HIAs for a variety of reasons, including inadequate guidance, absence of definitions, poor data and evidence, perceived lack of methods and tools and practitioner unwillingness or inability to address values like fairness and social justice. Current methods can address immediate, 'downstream' factors, but not the root causes of inequity. Extending HIAs to cover macro policy and global equity issues will require new tools to address macroeconomic policies, historical roots of inequities and upstream causes like power imbalances. More sensitive, participatory methods are also required. There is, however, no need for the development of a completely new methodology.

Introduction Health Equity Impact Assessment (HEIA) is a decision support tool that shows users how a new program, policy, or innovation affects health equity in different population groups . Various HEIA reporting and dissemination tools are available, nevertheless, a practical standard tool to present the results of HEIA in an appropriate period to policymakers is lacking. This work reports the development of a tool (a checklist) for HEIA reporting at the decision-making level, aiming to promote the application of HEIA evidence for improving health equity. Methods This is a mixed-method study that was carried out over four stages in 2022–2023: 1) identifying HEIA models, checklists, and reporting instruments; 2) development of the initial HEIA reporting checklist; 3) checklist validation; and 4) piloting the checklist. We also analyzed the Face, CVR, and CVI validity of the tool. Results We developed the initial checklist through analysis of 53 included studies and the opinions of experts. The final checklist comprised five sections: policy introduction (eight subsections), managing the HEIA of policy (seven subsections), scope of the affected population (three subsections), HEIA results (seven subsections), and recommendations (three subsections). Conclusion Needs assessment, monitoring during implementation, health impact assessment, and other tools such as monitoring outcome reports, appraisals, and checklists are all methods for assessing health equity impact. Other equity-focused indicators, such as the equity lens and equity appraisal, may have slightly different goals than the HEIA. Similarly, the formats for presenting and publishing HEIA reports might vary, depending on the target population and the importance of the report.

Health Impact Assessments (HIAs) motivate effective measures for safeguarding public health. There is consensus that HIAs in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) are lacking, but no study systematically focuses on those that have been successfully conducted across all regions of the world, nor do they highlight factors that may enable or hinder their implementation. Our objectives are to (1) systematically review, geographically map, and characterize HIA activity in LMICs; and (2) apply a process evaluation method to identify factors which are important to improve HIA implementation in LMICs. A systematic review of peer-reviewed HIAs in 156 LMICs was performed in Scopus, Medline, Web of Science, Sociological abstracts, and LILACs (Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences) databases. The search used PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and covered HIAs across all type of interventions, topics, and health outcomes. HIAs were included if they reported a clear intervention and health outcome to be assessed. No time restriction was applied, and grey literature was not included. The eligible studies were subjected to six process evaluation criteria. The search yielded 3178 hits and 57 studies were retained. HIAs were conducted in 26 out of 156 countries. There was an unequal distribution of HIAs across regions and within LMICs countries. The leading topics of HIA in LMICs were air pollution, development projects, and urban transport planning. Most of the HIAs reported quantitative approaches (72%), focused on air pollution (46%), appraised policies (60%), and were conducted at the city level (36%). The process evaluation showed important variations in the way HIAs have been conducted and low uniformity in the reporting of six criteria. No study reported the time, money, and staff used to perform HIAs. Only 12% of HIAs were based on participatory approaches; 92% of HIAs considered multiple outcomes; and 61% of HIAs provided recommendations and fostered cross-national collaboration. The limited transparency in process, weak participation, and inconsistent delivery of recommendations were potential limitations to HIA implementation in low and middle-income countries. Scaling and improving HIA implementation in low and middle-income countries in the upcoming years will depend on expanding geographically by increasing HIA governance, adapting models and tools in quantitative methods, and adopting better reporting practices.

Diarrhea, soil-transmitted helminth infection and malnutrition are leading causes of child mortality in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To reduce the prevalence of these diseases, effective interventions for adequate water, sanitation, and hygiene (WaSH) should be implemented. This paper describes the design of a cluster-randomized controlled trial that will compare the efficacy of four school-based WaSH interventions for improving children’s health literacy, handwashing, and nutrition. Interventions consisted of (1) WaSH policy reinforcement; (2) low-, medium-, or high-volume health education; (3) hygiene supplies; and (4) WaSH facilities (e.g., toilets, urinals, handwashing basins) improvements. We randomly allocated school clusters from the intervention arm to one of four groups to compare with schools from the control arm. Primary outcomes were: children’s health literacy, physical growth, nutrition status, and handwashing prevalence. Secondary outcomes were: children’s self-reported health status and history of extreme hunger, satisfaction with WaSH facilities, and school restrooms’ WaSH adequacy. We will measure differences in pre- and post-intervention outcomes and compare these differences between control and intervention arms. This research protocol can be a blueprint for future school-based WaSH intervention studies to be conducted in LMICs. Study protocols were approved by the ethics committees of the University of Bonn, Germany, and the University of the Philippines Manila. This trial was retroactively registered, ID number: DRKS00021623.

Background Cities are an important driving force to implement the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the New Urban Agenda. The SDGs provide an operational framework to consider urbanization globally, while providing local mechanisms for action and careful attention to closing the gaps in the distribution of health gains. While health and well-being are explicitly addressed in SDG 3, health is also present as a pre condition of SDG 11, that aims at inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable cities. Health in All Policies (HiAP) is an approach to public policy across sectors that systematically takes into account the health implications of decisions, seeks synergies, and avoids harmful health impacts in order to improve population health and health equity. HiAP is key for local decision-making processes in the context of urban policies to promote public health interventions aimed at achieving SDG targets. HiAPs relies heavily on the use of scientific evidence and evaluation tools, such as health impact assessments (HIAs). HIAs may include city-level quantitative burden of disease, health economic assessments, and citizen and other stakeholders’ involvement to inform the integration of health recommendations in urban policies. The Barcelona Institute for Global Health (ISGlobal)‘s Urban Planning, Environment and Health Initiative provides an example of a successful model of translating scientific evidence into policy and practice with regards to sustainable and healthy urban development. The experiences collected through ISGlobal’s participation implementing HIAs in several cities worldwide as a way to promote HiAP are the basis for this analysis. Aim The aim of this article is threefold: to understand the links between social determinants of health, environmental exposures, behaviour, health outcomes and urban policies within the SDGs, following a HiAP rationale; to review and analyze the key elements of a HiAP approach as an accelerator of the SDGs in the context of urban and transport planning; and to describe lessons learnt from practical implementation of HIAs in cities across Europe, Africa and Latin-America. Methods We create a comprehensive, urban health related SDGs conceptual framework, by linking already described urban health dimensions to existing SDGs, targets and indicators. We discuss, taking into account the necessary conditions and steps to conduct HiAP, the main barriers and opportunities within the SDGs framework. We conclude by reviewing HIAs in a number of cities worldwide (based on the experiences collected by co-authors of this publication), including city-level quantitative burden of disease and health economic assessments, as practical tools to inform the integration of health recommendations in urban policies. Results A conceptual framework linking SDGs and urban and transportplanning, environmental exposures, behaviour and health outcomes, following a HiAP rationale, is designed. We found at least 38 SDG targets relevant to urban health, corresponding to 15 SDGs, while 4 important aspects contained in our proposed framework were not present in the SDGs (physical activity, noise, quality of life or social capital). Thus, a more comprehensive HiAP vision within the SDGs could be beneficial. Our analysis confirmed that the SDGs framework provides an opportunity to formulate and implement policies with a HiAP approach. Three important aspects are highlighted: 1) the importance of the intersectoral work and health equity as a cross-cutting issue in sustainable development endeavors; 2) policy coherence, health governance, and stakeholders’ participation as key issues; and 3) the need for high quality data. HIAs are a practical tool to implement HiAP. Opportunities and barriers related to the political, legal and health governance context, the capacity to inform policies in other sectors, the involvement of different stakeholders, and the availability of quality data are discussed based on our experience. Quantitative assessments can provide powerful data such as: estimates of annual preventable morbidity and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) under compliance with international exposure recommendations for physical activity, exposure to air pollution, noise, heat, and access to green spaces; the associated economic impacts in health care costs per year; and the number of preventable premature deaths when improvements in urban and transport planning are implemented. This information has been used to support the design of policies that promote cycling, walking, public, zero and low-emitting modes of transport, and the provision of urban greening or healthy public open spaces in Barcelona (e.g. Urban Mobility, Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Plans, or the Superblocks’s model), the Bus Rapid Transit and Open Streets initiatives in several Latin American cities or targeted SDGs assessments in Morocco. Conclusions By applying tools such as HIA, HiAP can be implemented to inform and improve transport and urban planning to achieve the 2030 SDG Agenda. Such a framework could be potentially used in cities worldwide, including those of less developed regions or countries. Data availability, taking into account equity issues, strenghtening the communication between experts, decision makers and citizens, and the involvement of all major stakeholders are crucial elements for the HiAP approach to translate knowledge into SDG implementation.