Showing posts with label Japan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Japan. Show all posts

8 November 2013

WHO Urban HEART Consultation Day 3

I've been invited to participate in a WHO Consultation on Urban HEART in Kobe. This is a post on Day 3 of the Consultation, there are also posts on Day 1 and Day 2.

Workshop 3: Review of Urban HEART guidance

There was a widespread view that the current Urban HEART guidance works quite well but that there are a few areas where it might be enhanced. There was discussion about the selection of interventions and responses being difficult in practice, and that it involves considerable negotiation. There wasn't agreement about the best ways to reflect this in the guidance but it was a recurrent theme, and one that's familiar in the context of HIA and negotiating recommendations.

Community participation is another aspect of Urban HEART that has been difficult to provide guidance on. Participatory rapid assessments, health assemblies, surveys, workshops, and the use of mobile and electronic engagement tools were all discussed as ways to involve communities in Urban HEART processes, though these were all recognised as having limitations.

There was quite a lot of discussion about the extent to which HIA might be integrated into Urban HEART, though it was agreed that Urban HEART and HIA are complementary rather than being processes that could be integrated. This is because Urban HEART helps to identify needs and areas for action at the city level, whereas HIA is most useful where there is a proposal or a limited set of options to assess. So whilst there are procedural similarities they serve quite different purposes and integrating them might complicate things rather than helping. The diagram below from the Urban HEART User Guide shows how WHO conceptualises Urban HEART's role in local planning cycles. Some related procedures like multi-criteria decision analysis and equity lenses were also discussed, and how they might be integrated into Urban HEART.

6 November 2013

WHO Urban HEART Consultation Day 1

I've been invited to participate in a WHO Consultation on Urban HEART in Kobe. This is a post on some of the issues discussed on Day 1, with some of my thoughts and reflections scattered throughout. There are also posts on Day 2 and Day 3.

Urban HEART grew out of the Commission on the Social Determinants of Health's work and dates back to 2007. Early activity on piloting and developing a tool were led by a few countries, notably Iran. The final report from the CSDOH gave further impetus and led to more piloting of Urban HEART in more cities. After piloting Urban HEART was extensively reviewed and Version 1 was published in 2010.

Urban HEART is conceptualised by WHO as a tool for assessment and response to health equity issues at the city level. Urban HEART was designed to meet four criteria:
  • ease of use
  • comprehensive and inclusive
  • feasible and sustainable
  • links evidence to action
It's a stepwise process with a lot of similarities to HIA. In contrast to HIA it doesn't need a proposal (even a general one or options) to assess. Rather it allows municipalities to identify issues for action and responses at the city level, and in that way it's more like a needs assessment or planning activity. It's useful where some willingness to act on health already exists, so Healthy Cities is a useful basis for action. Higher-order support is always required (which may be less true for HIA?).

Data that informs Urban HEART is almost always spread across agencies - no single one holds or reports on even the core indicators. This means multiple permissions and interagency liaison is often required, which reiterates the need for higher-order permission and negotiation at the earliest stages. Whilst this is undoubtedly desirable for HIAs as well it hasn't always been possible in my experience and HIAs often fly under the radar, at least in the early stages. I'm not sure that would be possible for Urban HEART but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. The under-the-radar HIAs I've been involved in have often encountered resistance when their recommendations are presented. A clear, unambiguous mandate and imprimatur as a basis for proceeding isn't a bad thing.

A survey of Consultation participants that was conducted in advance found that most participants thought Urban HEART works well overall, is easy to use and successfully links evidence to action, but is less successful at being comprehensive and organisationally sustainable.

Case studies from the City of Paranaque in the Philippines, Tehran in Iran and Indore in India provided a range of useful, practical lessons on the use of Urban HEART (and they were quite inspirational). The Inore case in particular modified the indicators in a way to suit the local context, in their case by ensuring that the indicators were all meaningful and comprehensible to anyone, from residents to national bureaucrats. The case studies also highlighted the need for Urban HEART to not be a one-off activity but as an activity that needs to be revisited/undertaken semi-regularly.

5 October 2012

Japanese Health Impact Assessment Practice

Guest post by Michiko Hoshiko

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is not yet a routine part of public decision-making in Japan, though there are an increasing number of examples of HIA’s use.
Before any regulatory assessment measure can be adopted in Japan it’s necessary to demonstrate its economy, efficiency and effectiveness, so this forms the focus of much current HIA activity. In 2011 the Japanese Public Health Association produced guidance on HIA 1), focusing on how to do it.

The Kurume University School of Medicine and the University of Occupational Environmental Health have been centres for the development of HIA in Japan to date. The case studies below describe some of the HIAs and research that has been conducted.

Kurume University School of Medicine

1) Health impact assessment of the transition to a core city in Japan2)
The city of Kurume became a core city in 2008, which is a more autonomous level of regional government that some cities in Japan are eligible for. A core city requires a population at least 300,000 people and allows the transfer of administrative authority from prefecture to more independent municipal government. A rapid HIA was conducted on the transition to a core city because potential health impacts were identified for public servants in Kurume as well as residents.

2) Assessing the validity of health impact assessment predictions regarding a Japanese city’s transition to core city status: A monitoring review3)
The validity of health impact assessment predictions has not been accurately assessed comparing predictions with subsequent data. An HIA into the transition of Kurume to a core city was conducted before the transition, but the recommendations were not accepted and adopted by city officials. A monitoring review was performed one year after the transition to guage the accuracy of the HIA predictions by evaluating the correlation between the predicted impacts and what ended up happening.

3) Prioritization of health impact assessment on the management transformation of a municipal hospital in Japan
Municipal hospitals in Japan are currently facing a serious eonomic management crisis because of operating deficits and doctor shortages. Unprofitable departments, including obstetrics and paediatrics, have been closed at some hospitals, which has caused controversy in a number of local communities. The aim of our study was to examine the health-related impacts of management and service changes at a municipal hospital close to the Kurume University School of Medicine on residents, patients, and hospital staff.

4) Development of a Health Impact Assessment Screening Tool for Use at the Municipal Level4)
The aim of this study was to make an HIA screening tool for use at the municipal level in Japan. The HIA screening checklist is versatile and applicable across a range of projects. The intended users are municipal officers and as such we wanted it to be short and usable.

University of Occupational Environmental Health)

5) Development of HIA screening tools for policies and projects5)6)
In screening you try to identify as many potential health impacts as possible. This should include not only scientific knowledge but also “lay knowledge” that incorporates information such as the anxieties and fears of stakeholders. This screening tool allows stakeholders to participate in the identification of potential health impacts and to characterize them in terms of being positive and negative, as well as their potential severity. This is then used in the decision to proceed with the HIA or not.

6) HIA of closing a research laboratory7)
Due to changes in the economic climate a major laboratory for an international corporation was closed. An HIA was conducted to look at the potential impacts on workers, who are both domestic and come from overseas.

7) HIA for introducing for reemployment system after retirement8)
Japan is facing a rapidly ageing population, with reduced birth rates and the retirement of the post-war Baby Boomers. A number of companies have reintroduced “re-employment” shemes for workers who have already retired to address workforce shortages. This HIA looked at the potential positive and negative health impacts of re-employment schemes.

10 September 2012

Michiko Hoshiko: Researching the use of health impact assessment in Japan and Australia

I have been conducting research related to health impact assessment in Japan since 2008 at the Kurume University School of Medicine. As part of this I have been involved in several HIAs, for example our health impact assessment of the transition to a “core city” (core cities are cities of more than 300,000 people that take on greater governmental autonomy and some of the responsibilities of prefectural governments) and a HIA of the redevelopment of a major hospital site. I have also been involved in the development of a HIA screening checklist for use in government.

Following the completion of my PhD I have been able to pursue further research into HIA, through a fellowship based at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. My aims during the fellowship are:

1) Investigate the use of HIA screening checklists I will investigate the use made of the NSW Healthy Urban Development Checklist as a tool for engaging with local government officials around population health issues, comparing it with the checklist I developed at Kurume University in Japan.

2) Investigate the use of health impact assessment in local government I will investigate the use of health impact assessment and related tools to improve the population health impacts of decisions made by local government. In particular I will investigate process and procedural aspects of HIA that are associated with impacts on local government decision-making and implementation.

3) Investigate the use of health impact assessment in urban regeneration projects and major projects I will investigate the role of HIA in influencing the health impacts of urban regeneration projects, and its role in addressing health within major project assessment.

4) Investigate and compare the different barriers and facilitators for HIA’s use in Japan and Australia During my staying in Australia, I will conduct research on the different barriers and facilitators for HIA’s use, particularly on issues such as health service planning, urban sprawl, energy, and disaster response.

I hope to develop at least two academic journal articles on this program of research. If you’d like to find out more about my research or get in touch please email me at hmichi AT med.kurume-u.ac.jp