Follow the 2nd Annual U.S. National HIA Meeting at #NatHIA13

The Second Annual U.S. National Health Impact Assessment Meeting is taking place in Washington from 24-26 September. You can follow along using the #NatHIA13 hashtag on Twitter - join the discussion!

International HIA Conference, Geneva, 2-4 October - Book Now

Dear fellow HIA practitioners, esteemed colleagues and friends, 

I have the great pleasure in informing you about the 13th International Conference on Health Impact Assessment which is being held in Geneva, Switzerland between 2 to 4 October 2013. 

This event is being co-hosted by the University of Geneva, WHO and Health Promotion Switzerland. 

This is an important opportunity for the HIA community to come together and take stock of recent progress with HIA uptake and utilization in different policy and development related contexts. 

Particular focus will be given to the role of HIA as an instrument in facilitating the attainment of Health in All Policies objectives agreed to at the 8th World Conference on Health Promotion which took place in Helsinki in June of this year. 

Conference participants will include impact assessment practitioners, representatives of academic institutions, and some individuals from government agencies charged with commissioning and oversight of health impact assessment activities. 

For more details about the conference, see here a link to the website which contains more information about the programme, registration process, and invited speakers 

I look forward to seeing you there!

Regards and best wishes, 
Carlos Dora, MD, PhD. 
Co-ordinator Public Health and the Environment Department 
World Health Organization Switzerland

The full conference URL is http://www.unige.ch/medecine/eis2013/Programme_en.html

The application of Equator Principles in high-income OECD countries

Map of the Ichthys LNG Project Area
in North West Australia

There's a very interesting post by Mehrdad Nazari about the use of the Equator Principles and related performance standards in an Australian setting:

The Equator Principles website highlights that “Designated Countries [such as Australia and other high income OECD countries] are those countries deemed to have robust environmental and social governance, legislation systems and institutional capacity designed to protect their people and the natural environment”. The EPIII also notes that for “Projects located in Designated Countries, the Assessment process evaluates compliance with relevant host country laws, regulations and permits that pertain to environmental and social issues”. In the preceding paragraph, the EPIII highlights that for “Projects located in Non-Designated Countries, the Assessment process evaluates compliance with the then applicable IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability (Performance Standards) and the World Bank Group Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines (EHS Guidelines) (Exhibit III).”

Despite the proponents in the Ichthys LNG Project reportedly used the EPIII performance standards in an Australian context. Read the post in full here.

Speaking in a purely personal capacity I'd like to see more use of the Equator Principles in developed countries. They're rigorous and well-understood internationally, and can help to allay international investor concerns and facilitate due diligence on a project. An excellent point is made in the comments for Mehrdad's piece:

Although Australia is a developed country, projects like this are usually situated in remote areas which have many of the same characteristics as developing nations: delicate & untouched environment, indigenous traditional landowners, etc. Local laws regulate these issues but, by hedging its bets, the bank does not have to due diligence local law to the same extent – and the syndicate’s lawyers don’t have to convince 41 credit committees.

Thanks to Martin Birley for alerting me to the piece.

HIA Job in Minnesota USA

Health impact assessment coordinator job listing 

Integrating Health in Impact Assessment: opportunities for Health Promotion post 2015

IAIA members together with WHO Europe and the European Public Health Association (EUPHA) have conducted a research about “Health Inclusion in Impact Assessment”. The preliminary findings were presented in Calgary at IAIA2013 to other Impact Assessment practitioners. This joint discussion further refined the papers, the overall conclusions, and recommendations on the way forward. The final publication will be available on all Institutions websites in the coming months. In the mean time we present a poster at the 8th European Congress on Tropical Medicine and International Health, starting next week in Copenhagen. The poster focuses on the role that Impact Assessment can play in the post 2015 agenda. This is a crucial time when new global sustainable goals are under scrutiny and discussion. The Final Report of the Global Thematic Consultation on Health states that “Health is central to sustainable development: health is a beneficiary of development, a contributor to development, and a key indicator of what people-centred, rights-based, inclusive, and equitable development seeks to achieve.” In this new post 2015 development framework the contributions of other sectors to health and wellbeing are clearly articulated. Impact Assessment is the existing and widely accepted process which can be applied to all sectoral policies, programs, and projects in order to secure health, minimize health risks, and maximize health opportunities.

New HIA Events and Courses

Mostly via the HIA Gateway update

Training Courses

• Health economic assessment tools (HEAT) for walking and cycling: online training dates 
• IMPACT HIA Course, 11-15 November 20123

Events

• 13th HIA 2013 International Conference – Geneva, Switzerland, 2-4 October 2013
• 2nd National HIA Meeting, 24-25th September, Washington D.C. 
• How districts tackle the wider determinants of poor health, 4th September, London 
• 11th International Conference on Urban Health, 4-7th March 2014

The value of professional association

Folks,

Some/many of you will know that I have recently become co-chair of the HIA/Health Section of the IAIA (International Association for Impact Assessment). I did so reluctantly because I don’t know if I can give it the time it needs. In the end I accepted because I believe in what the IAIA stands for and what, in particular, the group of HIA Practitioners in the HIA/Health Section of IAIA are thinking and are doing (though I don’t necessarily always agree with every perspective). I like them and I consider some/many of them friends as well as colleagues.

I would like to take some of your valuable time and relate to you a story of my involvement in professional associations and why I think you should seriously consider joining IAIA. www.iaia.org

I was a passionate member/advocate of the UKPHA (UK Public Health Association) I joined UKPHA in 2003-04 as a corporate member (via my then very small independent consultancy Living Knowledge). I was very disappointed and quite frustrated that the Trustees of UKPHA did not see the funding crunch coming so that in the end the only way forward was for UKPHA to close (okay it merged with the Faculty of Public Health but for me it closed). I still think that was and is a big shame.

I have nothing against the UK Faculty of Public Health but ultimately FPH and the UK Royal Society of Public Health (of which I have also until this year been a long standing Fellow) have not been as good a fit in my professional development as I had hoped. At this stage in my (professional) life I don’t feel the need/value of being linked to associations where I don’t really get much from my membership apart from saying I am a member. Partly/mostly people can legitimately say this is down to me, you only get out of these associations what you put in. But I think it is also due to the structure and focus of these associations as well, HIA is not a strong focus in them.

Since 2004-05 I have also been a member of IAIA, in fact I met Ben Harris Roxas in Stavanger at an IAIA conference in 2005-ish. He has been a good HIA colleague (dare I say friend) ever since. I have also deepened friendships I have made at the International HIA conference at the Porto IAIA conference more recently.

There is only one international association for HIA that also connects with the other closely related IAs of Environmental and Social Impact Assessment and that is the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA).

My enthusiasm for IAIA has waxed and waned and there was a point where my membership lapsed and a point where I seriously considered not being a member. The thing that has kept me renewing my membership  is that sentence above and more recently the, not perfect, but increasingly interesting members-only IAIA Connect network where members can post ideas, issues and thoughts across environment, social and health. They do have a journal IAPA (Impact assessment and Project Appraisal) but I rarely have time to look at it. IAIA Connect and the email updates I get are as interesting and useful as the HIA Group on LinkedIn and the HIAnet email network (perhaps more so).

I find that my £80 a year or so (US$110 is what they charge) is worth it for IAIA Connect, the ethical values that IAIA provides as a benchmark for all Impact Assessors and the sense that I belong to a bigger global Impact Assessment movement/community.

                                                                            

Best,

S

US HIA call for proposals

NNPHI call for proposals

The National Network of Public Health Institutes has announced a call for proposals. It will award grants to up to two public health institute members to conduct health impact assessments, or HIAs. The support will include training, technical assistance, and travel to the national HIA meeting. NNPHI members who have completed at least one HIA are eligible.

Please read the call for proposals. For more information, see the health in all policies page of the NNPHI website.

Key Dates

• Wednesday, July 10, 1 p.m. EDT—Information session. Please register.
• Thursday, July 25—Proposals due to NNPHI.

NACCHO request for applications - Mentors and mentees

The National Association of County and City Health Officials is working to increase the use of HIAs among local health departments by providing peer-to-peer assistance and intensive technical support through a mentorship program. NACCHO is seeking applicants for:

• Mentors experienced in conducting HIAs. Those selected will receive stipends for their time.
• Mentees new to the HIA process. Those selected will receive assistance and technical support.

Mentors and mentees will be paired according to technical assistance needs. All interested and eligible local health departments and individuals are encouraged to apply. To read the request for applications, please visit http://www.naccho.org/topics/environmental/landuseplanning/index.cfm.

Key Dates

• Tuesday, July 16, noon EDT—Information session. Please register.
• Friday, Aug. 9, 8 p.m. EDT—Mentor applications due.
• Friday, Aug. 16, 8 p.m. EDT—Mentee applications due.

via Health Impact Project

USA: Access to paid sick days could reduce influenza

From Supriya Kumar:

New research, published in the American Journal of Public Health, reveals a reduction in flu cases when access to paid sick days is made available in the workplace. As you might imagine, it would be difficult to quantify the impact of a policy that hasn’t yet been implemented, so the researchers simulated their population of interest—1.2 million “agents” in Allegheny County, in this case—to evaluate the transmission patterns of influenza in workplaces under different scenarios (see below for details of their methods, which may be of interest to HIA researchers).

In a baseline simulation, access to paid sick days was inequitably distributed, as it is in reality. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the United States shows that only 53% of employees in small workplaces (workplaces with fewer than 50 employees) compared with 85% in large workplaces (workplaces with 500 or more employees) have access to paid sick days. A larger percentage of employees with access to paid sick days stayed home than did employees without paid sick days—both for an average of 1.7 days when sick. They then compared results to the estimated number of flu cases that might result under two alternative scenarios: (1) all employees had access to paid sick days (a universal paid sick days policy); and (2) all employees had access to one or two days when they could stay home from work and be paid to recover from the flu (a “flu days” intervention).

They defined flu days as additional days layered on top of existing paid sick days policies. Flu days were conceptualized as an intervention educating employees to stay home for an additional day over and above what they might anyway. Currently, employees stay home for 1.7 days on average with the flu. With a flu day, they would stay home for 2.7 days on average. In comparison, universal access to paid sick days increases the proportion of people staying home, but (according to their assumptions) does not increase the duration for which employees stay home. In short, universal access to paid sick days increases the probability of workers staying home when ill, and flu days increase the time they spend at home when they are infectious. 

This study found that universal access to paid sick days would reduce flu cases in the workplace by 5.86 percent and a “flu days” intervention would reduce cases by 25.33 percent. Together, universal paid sick days and flu days would equitably and effectively reduce influenza infections in workplaces. The universal paid sick days scenario was estimated to be more effective for small workplaces while “flu days” would lead to fewer flu cases in larger workplaces.

It is as important to test an intervention’s impact on health equity as it is to test its effectiveness. Universal access to paid sick days would enhance equity in the workplace by leveling the playing field in terms of access to resources. Additional interventions that promote employees staying away for more than 1.7 days on average could then be layered on to effectively reduce disease further.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that people with influenza stay home for 24 hours after their fever has resolved. However, not everyone is able to follow these guidelines--many more workers in small workplaces than in large ones lack access to paid sick days and hence find it difficult to stay home when ill. These simulations show that allowing all workers access to paid sick days would reduce illness due to workplace transmission—fewer workers get the flu over the course of the season if employees are able to stay home and keep the virus from being transmitted to their co-workers. These findings make a strong case for paid sick days. Future research will be examining the economic impacts of workplace policies.

More on the simulation methods

Agent-based modeling was used to simulate the population of Allegheny County so that they could assess the impact of a paid sick days policy. This is a quantitative technique that is becoming increasingly popular among health behavior researchers, and may be useful to HIA researchers as well. In this case, authors of the study used the Framework for Reconstructing Epidemic Dynamics (FRED), a platform developed at the Public Health Dynamics Laboratory, University of Pittsburgh, to simulate the 1.2 million population of the county. Other simpler platforms such as NetLogo have been developed to enable researchers and practitioners to get started with simulating a population of interest.
 A “synthetic population” of Allegheny County was developed by RTI International based on data from the American Community Survey, LandScan USA, and the census; populations for counties and states in the United States and are freely available. This synthetic population ensured that the model reflected reality in ways that were important to this study and to infectious disease spread. For example, agents are assigned to schools or workplaces based on location, size of schools/workplaces, and commuting patterns; and each agent had characteristics including age, sex, race, employment status, household income, and household location. Health information such as health status on each day, infectiousness, and susceptibility were associated with each agent in FRED.
 During each simulated day, children went to school and working adults to work. They interacted with other agents who shared the same social activity locations, and returned home at the end of the day to interact with others at home. Each weekday, this routine repeated. Agents had a probability of disease transmission during interactions with others based on parameters from published studies.

HIA Step by Step - A new online course by the NCCHPP

From the Canadian National Collaborating Centre for Healthy Public Policy:

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is used to inform decision makers about the potential effects of a project, program or policy on the health of a population. HIA of public policies applies to any project, program or policy for which the decision maker is a governmental authority, either at the local, regional, provincial or federal level.

The NCCHPP will offer a new online continuing education course on HIA of public policies starting this fall.

This 12-hour online course will take place over a period of 3 weeks and will be offered both in French and in English.

This course will allow you to become familiar with the HIA process as applied to public policies, recognize its foundations, and reflect on the favorable conditions for successful HIA implementation.

Dates of the online course:

• in French from October 15 to November 1st 2013 
• in English from October 21 to November 8, 2013

Registration deadline: October 7, 2013. Places are limited.

For more information, and to register: click here. (http://www.ncchpp.ca/274/Online_Course.ccnpps?id_article=922) 

For any question concerning this new online course, please contact us at the following address: ncchpp_training@inspq.qc.ca or by phone at 514-864-1600 ext. 3637.

HIA and peer review satisfaction survey

Request below.

Please help move the practice of HIA and peer review forward with your feedback on this survey (5 minutes).

Survey link (google form): http://goo.gl/DN7Tg

We, a group of HIA practitioners, are interested in your experiences of the peer review process in Health Impact Assessment (HIA), as a reviewer and/or as a reviewee. Although HIA practice is not standardized, many HIA practitioners feel some form of peer review to be important in ensuring quality in the HIA process. Your responses to the survey will:

• help us understand the broad and multiple practices of peer review

• inform a paper featuring case studies of how practitioners have incorporated peer review within the HIA framework.

For this survey, peer review is defined broadly to include all purposeful activities that contribute to enhancing the quality of an HIA using peer review and feedback. This could range from an informal gathering of “experts” to review the HIA to a formalized double-blind review facilitated by an academic journal. 
Reviewers might be environmental exposure specialists, community leaders, public officials, or others.Please feel free to share with other colleagues who have been a part of the peer review process in HIA.Deadline for responses - August 1st, 2013
For more information, contact Tim Choi at tim.choi@sfdph.org

Free Webinar: Incorporating Environmental Public Health Tracking into Health Impact Assessments

This looks to be an interesting webinar.

Thursday, 27 June, 2013
13:00 Eastern Daylight Time (18:00 British Summer Time)
Duration 75 minutes

Click here to register

Want to learn how you can leverage data from the Environmental Public Health Tracking Network for health impact assessments (HIA)? Then join us for a co-presentation by the Minnesota Department of Health’s Environmental Public Health Tracking and Climate & Health Programs describing their successful use of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) data in Health Impact Assessments. Speakers will discuss opportunities for intersection between HIA and tracking data and will also provide participants with a national perspective on the uses of health impact assessments and the Tracking Network.  

 

This is the second in a three-part series of Environmental Public Health Tracking Program webinars co-sponsored by the American Public Health Association, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials and the National Association of County and City Health Officials.

 

Presenters

Chuck Stroebel, MPHProgram ManagerMinnesota Environmental Public Health Tracking ProgramMinnesota Department of Health
Kelly Muellman, MAPlanner Minnesota Climate & Health ProgramMinnesota Department of Health

Welcome:  

James S. Blumenstock, MA

Chief Program Officer

Public Health Practice

Association of State and Territorial Health Officials

 

Moderators and Federal Updates:  

 

Lisa Hines, MPH, CHES

Communications Team Lead

Environmental Health Tracking Branch

Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects

National Center for Environmental Health

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

 

Arthur Wendel, MD, MPH, CDR USPHS

Team Lead

Healthy Community Design Initiative

Division of Emergency and Environmental Health Services

National Center for Environmental Health

Centers for Disease Prevention and Control

WHO Determinants of Health Discussion Paper Series

This is a WHO publication series devoted to the social determinants of health.

The series explores themes related to strategy, governance, tools and capacity building for addressing the social determinants of health to improve health equity

Action on the Social Determinants of Health: learning from previous experiences
Download discussion paper 1 at: http://bit.ly/14eLnIb

A Conceptual Framework for Action on the Social Determinants of Health
Download discussion paper 2 at: http://bit.ly/ZiWe5j

Monitoring Social Well-being to Support Policies on the Social Determinants of Health:
the case of New Zealand's "Social Reports/Te Purongo Oranga Tangata"
Download discussion paper 3 at: http://bit.ly/12m6FsX

Public Health Agencies and Cash Transfer Programmes:
making the case for greater involvement
Download discussion paper 4 at: http://bit.ly/11AeIe4


Evaluating intersectoral process for action on the social determinants of health:
Learning from key informants
Download discussion paper 5 at: http://bit.ly/10MLZY7

Addressing social determinants of health through intersectoral actions:
Five public policy cases from Mexico
Download discussion paper 6 at: http://bit.ly/15DrU77

Economic arguments for intersectoral interventions that improve the social determinants of health: Mexico
Download discussion paper 7 at: http://bit.ly/18QJus8

Cross-country analysis of the institutionalization of Health Impact Assessment
Download discussion paper 8 at: http://bit.ly/11V2G4Y

Cross-country analysis of the institutionalization of HIA

Cross-country analysis of the institutionalization of Health Impact Assessment.
Discussion Paper Series 8 (Policy & Practice). Geneva, World Health Organization, 2013
Available online PDF [45p.] at:http://bit.ly/18yCf5y

This report presents the findings of a cross-country study that describes and compares the institutionalization of HIA in nine (mainly middle- and high-income) countries and the European Union. It aims to provide greater insight to the enabling and limiting factors of HIA implementation and institutionalization and concludes with recommendations to increase and improve HIA practice.

The key factors enabling institutionalization of HIA were legislation; political willingness; involvement of research communities; awareness of the inadequacy of Environmental Impact Assessment or other assessments in considering health; capacity and resources; availability of international committal documents and tools; and public participation.

Challenges to institutionalization and systematic implementation included lack of clarity around methodology and procedures; narrow definitions of health; lack of awareness of relevance to other sectors; and insufficient funding and tools.

Based on their experiences, key informants proposed these core recommendations: embed HIA in national normative systems; clarify definition and operationalization of HIA and develop guidelines and methodological criteria; strengthen and build capacity for HIA practice; and improve cooperation between sectors….”

HIA Gateway Monthly Update

Reports:
HIA of South Lincoln Homes, Denver 
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=125073 

Rapid HIA of Skelmersdale Town Centre Re-Design Proposals 
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=124977 

Exeter Waste to Energy Facility HIA 
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=124974 

Equity-Focused HIA of the Proposed McKays to Peka-Peka Expressway 
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=124973 

HIA of Hartington Cheese Factory site 
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=124970 

Proposed Sugar Sweetened Drinks Tax: HIA 
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=124793 

Guides:
Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being (OECD) 
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=125077 

Planning for Health Draft Supplementary Planning Document 
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=124968 

Current Use:
Construction That Focuses on Health of Residents 
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=125049 

HIA: a Tool for Promoting Health in All Policies 
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=125048 

Health impact assessment in urban settings 
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=125044 

Theory Issues:
Would You Be Happier Living in a Greener Urban Area? (Journal paper) 
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=125072 

Strategies for effective policy on HIA 
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=125045 

Evidence for HIA:
The wellbeing and resilience paradox (The Young Foundation) 
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=125076 

Would You Be Happier Living in a Greener Urban Area? (Journal paper) 
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=125072 

Health and Spatial Planning: Transport and Health (RTPI) 
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=125070 

Health Impacts of Moving Freight: California 
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=125047 

Proposed Waste to Energy Facility at Poolbeg Peninsula: review of evidence 
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=124972 

Training Courses:
Health economic assessment tools (HEAT) for walking and cycling: online training 24th May, 27th june, 16th July 
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=124781 

Events:
Sandwell Health’s Economic Other Summit (SHOES), 13th-14th June, West Bromwich 
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=124605 

Weaving Wellbeing into a Neighbourhood, 21st May, London 
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=124604 

Air Quality and Health Conference, 12th June, Newcastle 
http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/item.aspx?RID=124603 

The HIA Bibliography has recently been updated, April 2013, and 50 new references were added. It is updated quarterly. 

HIA2013 - Deadline for abstracts extended

The deadline for submission of abstracts has been extended to Friday 14 June 2013. All the relevant information is on the website hia2013.net

Get writing!