Is less more? Creating an HIA community of practice online

A terrific guest post from Liz Green, Principal Health Impact Assessment Development Officer at the Wales Health Impact Assessment Support Unit.

Having read Ben’s posting regarding a more sophisticated use of social media for health impact assessment it struck a chord with me – particularly what Ben’s comments about passive online engagement – and made me think about the subject more.

As someone who actively updates a website and sends out e-updates and newsletters to a number of communities, organisations, networks, practitioners and policy makers I found what Ben said interesting.  The Wales Health Impact Assessment Support Unit (WHIASU) does not have a specific comments section on its website but as the administrator I rarely get feedback – positive or negative.  Yet we know from statistical figures we obtain each month, that 1,000’s of people browse and actively download information, research evidence and HIA Reports from the site each month.  So why is it so hard to get a better sense of the HIA community and to generate networking through social media?

Personally, I think the answer to this question may be found in identifying the barriers to the current use of social media and I have listed them in no particular order:

• Lack of time to contribute or the intention to post later and then not doing it.
• Personal information overload.   Posting on your own Facebook pages etc can be demanding enough (I’ve given up on it now – all that updating, replying, friending and defriending) without having to do it for ‘work’ – unless, of course it is built into your job description and are therefore committed to doing it. 
• Work information overload. HIA forms just a small component of many public health/health improvement/environmental practitioners’ job roles and they may be on several different competing contact lists and networks, health and non-health related – each having websites, sending out mail and updates and but do people really read them?  Are we bombarded now?  How many people honestly just press delete or only skim them because they get so many?  They may only have time to browse other more relevant media for their current work streams.  
• We need to consider that some people are just not technologically savvy on emerging media like Twitter and this could form a barrier.
• Posting and commenting can be seen as a small ‘club’  of a few expert practitioners who post and are highly active and know each other – and dare I say it - men? This can be off putting.
• And this brings me to my final thought - I think the most important barrier to moving the use of social media is FEAR and lack of confidence.  People fear appearing to ask silly questions and/or replying to posts and being dismissed for it by others.  On the one hand, the internet can be a very private place to hide in but on the other, posting a comment into the unknown leaves people very exposed on a global level. If we consider this at the extreme then it could be true to say that professional reputations could be shattered with the press of a button.  The emergence of ‘Trolling’ has also made many sensitive to this.  On Facebook people do know each other and although they may have friends of friends etc it is still seen as a relatively ‘safe’ environment to contribute to.  The very term ‘friend’ makes it appear this way and people like personal interaction and have some semblance of control over their network. In Wales, I am known personally by most of the Public Health and HIA policy makers and practitioners (and many more people know of me) and whenever I send out an e-update I get lots of private replies back.  Even if I state others should be emailed in the first instance.  People know me and they know that they can ask me anything and I will not think that they are silly or stupid or don’t have a clue or whatever. I posted on a network site last week and came into work today to find the person whose post I had replied to had found my work email address and emailed me directly and was asking for lots of info and could I send it to him privately. It is a classic example.

I’m not sure what the answer to Ben’s question is.  In a small country like Wales, we may or may not be able to mobilise a community of practitioners who interact with each other in a more interactive way so it may be unrealistic to assume that it can be done on a global level.  Perhaps, we should be satisfied by the level of social media we have now and the few people who do post?  It may be unrealistic to expect more sophisticated levels at least in the short term.  Anonymity may help but then no-one knows who to approach for assistance, the credibility of the poster and the background to what is being said.

I’m beginning to think that perhaps ‘less is more’ and to just focus on being ‘on trend’ – targeting the most fashionable and usable media at any given time and that as trends come and go the focus will change.  The approach will be a much more fluid and flexible.

WHIASU aims to launch a forum on the WHIASU website this year.  However, we aim to utilise it in an active way – as a ‘drop in’ site discussing relevant pre posted issues for a 2 hour window.  I did one last year with a National Welsh Housing Organisation – and it worked quite well – once I got over the time lag and the queue building up of questions to answer.  It will be interesting to see what kind of response we get.

HIA2012 Call for Abstracts

The scientific committee is launching a call for oral and poster presentations for the 12th International Conference on Health Impact Assessment (HIA).

For its first time in North America, the 2012 HIA International Conference will take place in Québec City from August 29 to 31, 2012. The Conference seeks on one hand to advance HIA practice in light of new knowledge, and on the other to prove its relevance, and to stimulate its use in various decision-making contexts. It is open to everyone whose decisions and actions may have an impact on health.

The Conference will be structured around four major thematic tracks:

1. HIA in the policy-making process
2.  Institutionalization of HIA: Addressing political and administrative issues.
3. Diversity of practices: Developing a common thread, maintaining flexibility.
4. Evaluation, research, and ethics: Advancing HIA practice. 

The deadline to submit a proposal for presentations is February 29, 2012. To submit a proposal, visit the Call for Abstracts page of the Conference Web site

EIS 2012 Appel à communications

Le comité scientifique lance un appel à communications orales et affichées pour la 12e Conférence internationale sur l'évaluation d'impact sur la santé (EIS).

Pour la première fois en Amérique, la Conférence internationale EIS 2012 aura lieu dans la ville de Québec du 29 au 31 août 2012. La Conférence vise d'une part à faire évoluer les pratiques de l'EIS à la lumière des nouvelles connaissances, et d'autre part à faire valoir sa pertinence et à stimuler son utilisation dans différents contextes de prise de décision. Elle s'adresse à l'ensemble des personnes dont les décisions et les actions peuvent avoir un impact sur la santé.

La Conférence sera articulée autour de ces quatre grands axes thématiques :

1. La place de l'EIS dans le développement des politiques publiques.
2. L'institutionnalisation de l'EIS : faire face aux enjeux politico-administratifs.
3. La diversité des pratiques : une trame commune à dégager, une flexibilité à préserver.
4. L'évaluation, la recherche et l'éthique : pour faire évoluer la pratique de l'EIS.
5. La date limite pour soumettre une proposition est le 29 février 2012.

Pour soumettre une proposition, visitez la section Appel à communications du site Web de la Conférence

Announcing the Society of Practitioners of Health Impact Assessment

We are pleased to announce the creation of SOPHIA: The Society of Practitioners of Health Impact Assessment. SOPHIA is a new organization serving the needs of health impact assessment practitioners. Developed by a working group from the 2010 HIA in the Americas Workshop, SOPHIA aims to provide leadership and promote excellence in the practice of health impact assessment. SOPHIA is guided by the following core values: democracy, equity, sustainability, ethical use of evidence, and comprehensive approach to health. By promoting and practicing a thorough and systematic consideration of health in decision making, SOPHIA will help achieve better health for all.

We would like to invite all HIA practitioners, whether experienced or novice, and those with a broader interest in HIA to become a member. Membership is free of charge initially and will offer the following benefits:

• A formal network of HIA professionals and a regular practitioners' workshop hosted by SOPHIA at which emerging topics in HIA are discussed and thought through;


• Published information on the conduct and context of HIA;


• A forum for new practitioners to meet mentors and to support training and technical assistance for SOPHIA members;


• Practice standards and guidance to assist practitioners; and


• An opportunity for peer-review of proposed or completed HIAs to ensure the continued high quality of HIA.

The only requirement for membership is signing on to a statement pledging that you will conduct HIA in a manner that aligns with SOPHIA’s core values, as stated above and described more fully on the website.

To become a member, or for more information about SOPHIA, please visit www.hiasociety.org. Because SOPHIA is currently a volunteer-led organization, members will be expected to volunteer with the organization and will be given opportunities to do so.

SOPHIA Provisional Steering Committee

Chair: Jonathan Heller
Vice-chair: Murray Lee
Secretary: Liz Hodges Snyder
Treasurer: Marla Orenstein

New $1,000 bursary available for first time IAIA conference delegates

The International Association for Impact Assessment is pleased to announce one US$1,000 President’s Bursary for IAIA12. 

An eligible applicant:

• has not attended an IAIA conference before, 
• is one whose work (academic, government, or industry) is in line with the conference theme, and
• has submitted an abstract for IAIA12 by 31 January 2012. 

To apply send an email to info@iaia.org addressing how you meet the criteria above, and attach a 300-word document describing the paper to be presented at IAIA12 and its relevance to the conference theme (Energy Future). The application deadline is 31 January 2012. (Conference and abstract submission information is available at http://www.iaia.org/iaia12)

Video: Improving the Health of the United States

What would sophisticated use of social media actually look like?

I've been asked to participate in a panel on "sophisticated uses of social media for science" at the upcoming Australian Science Communicators National Conference. I feel like something of a fraud for doing this.

Firstly, I'm not a science communicator. At most I'm an applied scientist with an annoying habit of over-sharing who likes using social media. Secondly, my use of social media probably isn't that sophisticated. I've been blogging on one form or another since 2003 and I've been a Twitter and Facebook user for four or five years. I've set up listservs (they still exist!), sent out e-newsletters, gotten involved in several wiki projects, actively participated in LinkedIn groups and even given Quora a go.

I've tried to use all these things to communicate with health impact assessment practitioners and researchers, but at a bigger-picture level I've been trying to create a community of practice. I've met with mixed results.

All this activity has been successful in broadcasting news about health impact assessment and my research. More people know about my work and me. It's done my work and my career no harm and I think people generally appreciate it. But it's been a lot less successful in bringing together that community of practice that I set out to create.

Why? I'm not entirely sure. There is of course a hierarchy of participation in all social media. For everyone who generates content there's many more who comment, and there's many more than them who share online information in some way (usually by email). The great bulk of people still engage online in (seemingly) passive ways. The number of people I know who use Twitter just to follow people but who never interact astounds me. This blog attracts around 3,000 unique visitors a month but I can't recall the last time we got a comment. There are a few more on our Facebook page, but there's a lower barrier to commenting because of the medium.

A lot of these shortcomings may come back to how I use social media, in perhaps unsophisticated ways. This blog is rarely written in a way that invites comments (needs more outrage!). Infodumps are often quicker and easier. The @hiablog Twitter account is principally for sharing links and retweeting others. It's useful but it's rarely dynamic and I doubt it's sophisticated.

All this prompts me to wonder, what would sophisticated use of social media look like? What should I, as an applied social researcher who's committed to social media, be trying to do?

I'll have a go at answering my own question in the comments. I plan to use any ideas you have shamelessly at the conference panel :)

Ben (you can also contact me at @ben_hr or @hiablog)

AusAID African regional capacity building stipends available for IAIA12 conference

Applications are being accepted for the IAIA12 AusAID Capacity Building Stipend Program.  Applications are due 1 February 2012.  Applicants must be
 
• African nationals employed in Africa,
• working for government, industry, or NGOs/civil society, and
• working with or in the extractive industries sector in the field of impact assessment or related areas.
 
Additional program details, including the program announcement and application form, are available online at http://www.iaia.org/iaia12.
 
IAIA wishes to express appreciation to AusAID and the Australian government for providing funding for these stipends.

Health, Not Health Care: Changing the Conversation

It's a few years after the fact but the 2010 Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer of Health of Ontario to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario is quite interesting and focuses on comprehensive primary health care and intersectoral action for health. It makes specific mention of HIA several times - worth a look.

Certificate in Community-Driven Health Impact Assessment

The Coady International Institute is offering a certificate in community-driven HIA. More info here.

Visual representations of stakeholders mapping and development scenarios

Mapping Architectural Controversies research project at the Manchester School of Architecture provides an interesting applied example of stakeholder mapping, categorization and analysis in relations to different development scenarios. Their simulation is a dynamic representation as interests and stakeholders shift over time as the project evolves. The project utilizes basic computer modeling techniques to make sense of and display the relationships and priorities of those driving complex projects, as well as those affected by them. Interesting is also the categorization of actors in: individuals, institutional and non human.

Wales Health Impact Assessment Best Practice Sharing Workshop 24th February 2012

From the WHIASU site:

The Wales Health Impact Assessment Support Unit (WHIASU) will be holding the third annual All Wales HIA Network Event on February 24th in the vibrant city of Cardiff.

The workshop is open to those interested in or practicing HIA in Wales.  It will aim to disseminate positive examples of HIA practice in Wales and provide a forum in which to discuss themes and issues of interest further. This forum will be in the form of 60 minutes allocated for discussion sessions and which will be driven by the participants.  This is time for you to discuss any issues that are important to your practice of HIA and enable you to share and learn from one another’s experience.  If you have any suggestions for themes that you would like to discuss at the workshop, then please send them to  Liz Green by January 30th 2012.

Places are limited so please register early.  There will be a nominal fee of £30 – this is refundable on attendance. If you would like further details, to register or express an interest in attending then please contact Julia Lester, Public Health Wales at Julia.lester2@wales.nhs.uk

Programme and further details will be published shortly.

Eliminating Health Inequities: every woman and every child counts

This International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) report uses a human rights framework to tackle health inequities. It provides key evidence on how health inequities can and should be addressed through a holistic approach.

It argues that health inequities, and the resulting social injustice, are closely linked with poverty, gender inequality and human rights violations which in turn, have an impact on education, transport, health, agriculture, and overall well-being.

Interventions should therefore be multi-sectoral, going beyond health to address social and economic determinants – malnutrition, alcohol abuse, poor housing, indoor air pollution and poverty, among others.

There are some nice case studies from Egypt, Bangladesh, Malawi, Ecuador, Afghanistan, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Austria, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and Eritrea.

Click here to download the report.


Key recommendations:

Governments:   take the lead in prioritizing equity

• Ensure universal access
  Governments should ensure universal access to evidence-based public health interventions for all and allocate health resources according to need.
• Enable informed decision-making
  Governments should make accurate health information available to all so that everyone, particularly the most vulnerable, can make informed deci- sions about their health.
• Take a holistic approach
  Governments should promote equality, solidarity, participation, non-discrim- ination and non-violence in all aspects of society, not just health, because tackling health inequities means tackling inequities in society in general.
• Harness the power of a volunteer network
  Governments should make the most of Red Cross Red Crescent volunteers, who form part of the world’s largest humanitarian network, to eliminate health inequities. Volunteers are uniquely capable of reaching the most marginalized groups. Some volunteers are themselves members of these and, therefore, are an entry point for reaching those whom the formal health sector fails to reach.

National Societies:   scale up efforts

• Reach the unreached
  Through their extensive volunteer networks, National Societies need to scale up their activities to bring prevention, treatment, care and support to those who are left out of the formal health system – the women and children who have the least access to appropriate health services. National Societies should expand their reach by encouraging health-seeking behaviours, as well as fostering social inclusion and peace.
• Encourage prioritization and informed decision-making
  National Societies should use their status as auxiliaries to government to engage decision-makers to prioritize health equity and equity in all aspects of society and to hold authorities accountable.
• Develop powerful partnerships
  In order to eliminate health inequities as quickly and effectively as possible, National Societies should engage in meaningful dialogue with key stakehold- ers and form strategic partnerships to increase the effectiveness of advocacy.

Donors:   create an enabling environment

• Maintain and increase funding levels
  Given the current global economic crisis, any cuts in healthcare funding for mother-and-child programmes will have a devastating effect on the target groups – many will be exposed to even greater health risks and deeper lev- els of poverty. Peer pressure has meant that some donors have maintained their levels of funding, despite difficult economic circumstances in their own countries.
• Align commitments with identified gaps
  Encourage skilled and adapted human resources for health, the coverage of essential mother, child and youth health interventions, and integration with other Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Donors must ensure a well-balanced, effective and adapted response to bridge the gaps in the health of woman, child and young people.
• Remember spending on health makes good economic and social sense
  Health spending is an investment that yields returns in individual and population health, education, and economic growth.
• Continue to innovate in health financing
  In order to increase and improve health services in the world’s poorest countries, innovative funding mechanisms are necessary, which require the participation of a range of actors.
• Start with the person, not the project or programme
  Investment in a comprehensive, multi-sectoral, integrated health approach is the only way forward. Standalone projects do have an impact, but the impact is limited. If a child is immunized but the mother dies in childbirth because of health service failures, the child’s welfare could hardly be con- sidered to have improved.

National Societies together with civil society:   help broker effective support

• Become a responsible stakeholder for development
  Representatives from civil society organizations, the private sector and academia should play a greater role in helping their governments broker an international commitment that puts health inequity issues high on the development agenda. They should also ensure they commit to supporting countries in implementing effective measures to reduce the health gap, particularly for mothers and children. Civil society has a key role to play in being the voice of the voiceless.
• Hold policy-makers to account
  Ensure that parliamentarians represent all their constituents, and take the right legislative and budgetary decisions. Ensure they hold themselves, and their executives, to account.

Health and social services expenditures: associations with health outcomes

Objective:
To examine variations in health service expenditures and social services expenditures across Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries and assess their association with five population-level health outcomes.

Design:
A pooled, cross-sectional analysis using data from the 2009 release of the OECD Health Data 2009 Statistics and Indicators and OECD Social Expenditure Database.

Setting:
OECD countries (n¼30) from 1995 to 2005. Main outcomes: Life expectancy at birth, infant mortality, low birth weight, maternal mortality and potential years of life lost.

Results:
Health services expenditures adjusted for gross domestic product (GDP) per capita were significantly associated with better health outcomes in only two of five health indicators; social services expenditures adjusted for GDP were significantly associated with better health outcomes in three of five indicators. The ratio of social expenditures to health expenditures was significantly associated with better outcomes in infant mortality, life expectancy and increased potential life years lost, after adjusting for the level of health expenditures and GDP.

Conclusion:  
Attention to broader domains of social policy may be helpful in accomplishing improvements in health envisioned by advocates of healthcare reform.

Source:
Behind a paywall
Health and social services expenditures: associations with health outcomes
Elizabeth H Bradley,1 Benjamin R Elkins,1 Jeph Herrin,2 Brian Elbel3
BMJ Qual Saf 2011;20:826e831. doi:10.1136/bmjqs.2010.048363 

Health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials

Abstract

This systematic review collected data concerning the effects of diets containing GM maize, potato, soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health.

They examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration) and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations). They referenced the 90-day studies on GM feed for which long-term or multigenerational study data were available. Many aspects were examined in the studies using biochemical analyses, histological examination of specific organs, hematology and the detection of transgenic DNA. The statistical findings and methods were considered from each study. 

Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed. However, some small differences were observed, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance. If required, a 90-day feeding study performed in rodents, according to the OECD Test Guideline, is generally considered sufficient in order to evaluate the health effects of GM feed. The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.

Highlights

• No significant differences in analyzed parameters were found in long-term studies.
• No significant differences in analyzed parameters were found in multigenerational studies.
• The 90-day OECD Test Guideline seems adequate and sufficient for evaluating health effects of GM plant diets.
• The benefits of harmonizing experimental protocols in fundamental research to raise the quality of such studies are discussed.

Source

Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review

Snell Chelsea, Bernheim Aude, Bergé Jean-Baptiste, Kuntz Marcel, Pascal Gérard, Paris Alain, Agnès E. Ricroch

Food and Chemical Technology, In Press, Uncorrected Proof, doi:10.1016/j.fct.2011.11.048

Full article available behind a paywall.

New article on a Korean HIA

A new open access article on a Korean HIA has been published:

Kang E, Park HJ, Kim JE (2011) Health Impact Assessment as a Strategy for Intersectoral Collaboration, Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, 44(5):201-209

Objectives
This study examined the use of health impact assessment (HIA) as a tool for intersectoral collaboration using the case of an HIA project conducted in Gwang Myeong City, Korea. 

Methods
A typical procedure for rapid HIA was used. In the screening step, the Aegi-Neung Waterside Park Plan was chosen as the target of the HIA. In the scoping step, the specific methods and tools to assess potential health impacts were chosen. A participatory workshop was held in the assessment step. Various interest groups, including the Department of Parks and Greenspace, the Department of Culture and Sports, the Department of Environment and Cleansing, civil societies, and residents, discussed previously reviewed literature on the potential health impacts of the Aegi-Neung Waterside Park Plan. 

Results
Potential health impacts and inequality issues were elicited from the workshop, and measures to maximize positive health impacts and minimize negative health impacts were recommended. The priorities among the recommendations were decided by voting. A report on the HIA was submitted to the Department of Parks and Greenspace for their consideration. 

Conclusions
Although this study examined only one case, it shows the potential usefulness of HIA as a tool for enhancing intersectoral collaboration. Some strategies to formally implement HIA are discussed.

Access the article here