HIA 和 EIA 不同，但也许不像我们之前认为的那样：文献计量分析。
HIA and EIA Are Different, but Maybe Not in the Way We Thought They Were: A Bibliometric Analysis.
机构信息
Centre for Health Equity Research Training and Evaluation (CHETRE), Australia Research Centre for Primary Health Care & Equity, A Unit of Population Health, Member of the Ingham Institute, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
Centre for Primary Health Care & Equity, A Unit of Clinical Services Integration and Population Health, Health Equity Research Development Unit (HERDU), The University of New South Wales, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
出版信息
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Aug 28;18(17):9101. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18179101.
BACKGROUND
The fields of Health Impact Assessment (HIA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) have grown with increasing numbers of disciplines and sectors contributing to their advancements, but with it, perceived conflict over methodological and disciplinary approaches to integrate health in impact assessments. This study maps the current field of HIA and health in EIA to examine the scientific landscape of the field.
METHODS
We carried out a bibliometric analysis of HIA papers and EIA papers that included a health focus in peer-reviewed journals in the Web of Science Core Collection ( = 229). We carried out co-authorship and co-citation network analyses of authors and documents in VOSviewer.
RESULTS
We identified two main co-authorship and co-citation groupings. Our document co-citation analysis also identified four clusters with two major groups, the Defining HIA cluster and the Describing the fields cluster versus the Active transport quantitative HIA cluster, and the Quantitative modelling tools cluster.
CONCLUSION
Our findings strongly suggest that there exist two groups of thought in the scholarly fields of HIA and health in EIA. Barriers to developing more methodologically integrated approaches to considering health within EIA are related more to disciplinary differences than field (HIA versus EIA)-based differences and we advocate for the development of transdisciplinary approaches to both HIA and EIA.
背景
健康影响评估（HIA）和环境影响评估（EIA）领域随着越来越多的学科和部门为其发展做出贡献而不断壮大，但随之而来的是对将健康纳入影响评估的方法和学科方法的看法存在冲突。本研究绘制了 HIA 和 EIA 中的健康领域图，以检验该领域的科学格局。
方法
我们对同行评议期刊《科学引文索引核心集》（Web of Science Core Collection）中的 HIA 论文和 EIA 论文进行了文献计量分析（共 229 篇）。我们在 VOSviewer 中对作者和文献进行了合著和共引网络分析。
结果
我们确定了两个主要的合著和共引分组。我们的文献共引分析还确定了四个聚类，其中两个主要的聚类是“定义 HIA”聚类和“描述领域”聚类，而“积极交通定量 HIA”聚类和“定量建模工具”聚类则相反。
结论
我们的研究结果强烈表明，在 HIA 和 EIA 中的健康领域存在着两种思想流派。在 EIA 中发展更具方法学综合的考虑健康的方法的障碍更多地与学科差异有关，而不是与基于领域（HIA 与 EIA）的差异有关，我们提倡为 HIA 和 EIA 都发展跨学科方法。
Zotero 插件