Research Centre for Urban Change, School of Environment and Life Sciences, University of Salford, Greater Manchester, UK.
Int J Health Plann Manage. 2011 Apr-Jun;26(2):213-22. doi: 10.1002/hpm.1064. Epub 2010 Oct 7.
This research was carried out to ascertain the different types and sources of evidence commonly applied to the Health Impact Assessment (HIA) process in the United Kingdom; and to also examine the factors that influence the derivation and usage of the different types of evidence. A questionnaire survey of 52 HIA practitioners who had conducted a total of 103 HIAs over a 3-year period was carried out, followed by semi-structured interviews of 11 practitioners to gain deeper insights into the questionnaire findings. Ten different sources of evidence were seen to have been applied to the HIA process. Literature review was discovered to be the most commonly utilized source of evidence, having been used by 37 out of 52 practitioners (71.2%) and in 83.5% of the 103 HIAs. Engagement with local residents was second in terms of usage by practitioners (69.2%) and expert opinion was third, having been used by 67.3% of respondents. Other sources of evidence included completed HIA reports, survey, modelling and Delphi exercises. The findings point to efforts to ensure that predictions are grounded on robust sources of evidence, although several issues need to be addressed in the pursuit of evidence-based HIA (EBHIA).
本研究旨在确定在英国健康影响评估（HIA）过程中常用的不同类型和来源的证据，并研究影响不同类型证据的推导和使用的因素。对 52 名在 3 年内共进行了 103 项 HIA 的 HIA 从业者进行了问卷调查，随后对 11 名从业者进行了半结构化访谈，以更深入地了解问卷调查结果。研究发现，共有 10 种不同的证据来源被应用于 HIA 过程。文献综述被发现是最常用的证据来源，52 名从业者中有 37 名（71.2%）和 103 项 HIA 中的 83.5%使用了文献综述。从业者的使用情况来看，与当地居民的互动位居第二（69.2%），专家意见位居第三，67.3%的受访者使用了专家意见。其他证据来源包括已完成的 HIA 报告、调查、建模和德尔菲法练习。研究结果表明，人们努力确保预测基于可靠的证据来源，但在追求基于证据的 HIA（EBHIA）时，需要解决几个问题。
