| Organization |
University of Birmingham, United Kingdom |
European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, Brussels, Belgium |
US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio |
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia |
Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington |
| Source of HIAs |
Primarily Europe (85 of 88 HIAs [97%]) |
Europe: 19 countries |
United States |
Australia and New Zealand |
United States |
| Years of HIAs reviewed |
1996–2004 |
2002–2006 |
2005–2012 |
2005–2009 |
2005–2013 |
| Sampling strategy |
All HIAs found on multiple Web-based databases as of 2004 |
Purposely selected from list of 158 European HIAs completed or ongoing as of 2005 to “have some potential for effectiveness” |
Used multiple databases of US HIAs completed as of spring 2012; chose all HIAs in 4 sectors related to agency mission |
Purposely selected from among 55 Australia/New Zealand HIAs completed by 2009 to reflect willingness to participate and diversity in timing, geography, and effectiveness |
Purposely selected from among all US HIAs completed as of 2013 for diversity in geography, sector, funding; subjectively successful |
| No. of HIAs reviewed |
88 |
17 case studies, of which 8 were not HIAs as strictly defined |
81 |
11 |
23 |
| Level of decision making |
Local or regional, 83; national, 4; supranational, 1 |
Local, 10; national, 6; multinational, 1 |
Local or county 63; state 13; national 4; unclear 1 |
Local or regional, 11 |
Local or regional, 17; state, 6 |
| Sector |
Transportation, 16; housing, 12; regeneration, 11; health care, 11; environment, 7; leisure, 7; industry, 5; other, 19 |
Transportation, 5; urban planning, 5; agriculture, 2; environment, 2; industry, 1; infrastructure, 1; nutrition, 1 |
Land use, 39; transportation, 21; housing/buildings/infrastructure, 17; waste management/site revitalization, 4 |
Land use, 7; health service, 2; housing, 1; transportation, 1 |
Built environment, 11; transportation, 3; natural resources/energy, 3; other, 6 |
| Review methods |
Reviewed 88 case studies and 32 HIA methods papers; conducted email survey of 10 academicians, practitioners, and policy makers |
Worked with collaborators in each country to examine dimensions of effectiveness in case studies; included 3–6 interviews with stakeholders and decision makers for each HIA |
Reviewed HIA reports; used minimum elements of HIA as defined by Bhatia et al (37) and 4-cell HIA effectiveness matrix (35); used Internet searches to assess impacts of HIA on decisions |
Reviewed HIA reports and questionnaires completed by HIA practitioners; conducted 33 semistructured interviews with HIA stakeholders |
Reviewed HIA reports; conducted 166 semistructured interviews with HIA team members, stakeholders, and decision makers; conducted Web survey of 144 HIA practitioners |
