Assessing the unintended health impacts of road transport policies and interventions: translating research evidence for use in policy and practice.

MRC Social & Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow, UK.
BMC Public Health (Impact Factor: 2.32). 10/2008; 8:339. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-339
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Transport and its links to health and health inequalities suggest that it is important to assess both the direct and unintended indirect health and related impacts of transport initiatives and policies. Health Impact Assessment (HIA) provides a framework to assess the possible health impacts of interventions such as transport. Policymakers and practitioners need access to well conducted research syntheses if research evidence is to be used to inform these assessments. The predictive validity of HIA depends heavily on the use and careful interpretation of supporting empirical evidence. Reviewing and digesting the vast volume and diversity of evidence in a field such as transport is likely to be beyond the scope of most HIAs. Collaborations between HIA practitioners and specialist reviewers to develop syntheses of best available evidence applied specifically to HIA could promote the use of evidence in practice.
Best available research evidence was synthesised using the principles of systematic review. The synthesis was developed to reflect the needs of HIA practitioners and policymakers.
Aside from injury reduction measures, there is very little empirical data on the impact of road transport interventions. The possibility of impacts on a diverse range of outcomes and differential impacts across groups, make it difficult to assess overall benefit and harm. In addition, multiple mediating factors in the pathways between transport and hypothesised health impacts further complicate prospective assessment of impacts. Informed by the synthesis, a framework of questions was developed to help HIA practitioners identify the key questions which need to be considered in transport HIA.
Principles of systematic review are valuable in producing syntheses of best available evidence for use in HIA practice. Assessment of the health impacts of transport interventions is characterised by much uncertainty, competing values, and differential or conflicting impacts for different population groups at a local or wider level. These are issues pertinent to the value of HIA generally. While uncertainty needs explicit acknowledgement in HIA, there is still scope for best available evidence to inform the development of healthy public policy.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Health not only depends on biologic or lifestyle factors but also on other economic, social, political, and environmental factors that shape the way people live and become ill. Thus, health policies are not the only policies affecting health, and consequently governments are increasingly interested in identifying the effect of other non-health policies on health. Health impact assessment is a prospective methodology that aims to predict the health impacts of policies before their implementation so that modifications can be suggested to maximize positive effects and avoid unexpected negative repercussions on health.The first stage in this process is screening, which can be used to select the interventions that could benefit from complete health impact assessment. Since resources are limited and not all government interventions can be assessed, tools that allow prioritization are essential. As a first stage in the validation of a systematic screening tool for health impact assessment in Spain, this article presents the process of compiling and classifying the non-health public policies of the eighth term of office of the Basque Government. Of the 97 policies analyzed, 76% were related to structural determinants of health inequalities, 79% were tactical or operational, 67% were aimed at specific population groups, and 66% were already implemented.The technical staff of other participating departments perceived the entire process of this initiative and its rationale positively. This initial experience allowed the planning of non-health policies in the Basque Country to be determined in detail as a means to move forward in incorporating impact on health in all policies.
    Gaceta Sanitaria 02/2012; DOI:10.1016/j.gaceta.2011.07.005 · 1.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Traffic noise cause adverse effects on health and quality of life of population exposed to it, including annoyance, sleep disturbance, decreased performance at school/work, stress, hypertension, and ischemic heart disease. Despite of that, there is still a lack of standards on regulations/policies regarding noise in urban environments. In Australia, there are many discrepancies in thresholds, regulations, and policies with regard to noise levels when states and regions are compared. Currently Victoria has day-to-night threshold for noise level high above the accepted levels in Europe, and they are incomplete, since there is no standard for the late night period. A better understanding of the effects of noise on health for the Australian situation is necessary for developing more informed and unified policy for traffic noise management. This paper reviews existing literature, evidence and policies related to urban noise, and combines them to a case study of mapping noise and population exposure levels.
    5th Healthy Cities: Working together to achieve liveable cities Conference, Geelong, Vic, Australia; 06/2012
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Unintended harm theory as related to public health interventions (PHI) is under developed, with harm evaluation and reporting often absent or incomplete. This review presents a typology for, and underlying factors linked to, PHI-associated unintended harm. This scoping review was conducted electronically and includes articles from 1992 to June of 2013. Out of 2,490 originally identified titles, 26 full-text articles were included that discussed unintended harm associated with PHI. An iterative data analysis process was utilized to identify both a typology and underlying factors associated with unintended harm. A typology of PHI-associated unintended harm was identified: (1) physical; (2) psychosocial; (3) economic; (4) cultural and (5) environmental. Five underlying factors associated with PHI unintended harm emerged: (1) limited and/or poor quality evidence; (2) prevention of one extreme leads to another (boomerang effects); (3) lack of community engagement; (4) ignoring root causes; and (5) higher-income country PHI implementation in a lower- or middle-income country. PHI planning and evaluation frameworks may benefit from the consideration and potential incorporation of the unintended harm typology and underlying factors.
    International Journal of Public Health 02/2014; 59(1). DOI:10.1007/s00038-013-0526-6 · 1.99 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 2, 2014