1. Session 5 Chair: Eva Elliott Health Impact Assessment: Making the Difference

2. Guide to reviewing published evidence for use in health impact assessment Jennifer Mindell, Lorraine Taylor, Karen Lock, Mike Joffe, Sarah Curtis, Annette Boaz, Anna Boltong, Jane Biddulph

3. Features of prospective HIA focus on complex interventions or policy diverse effects on determinants of health; evidence on reversibility of adverse factors? broad range of stakeholders involved; short timescale & limited resources; pragmatic need to inform decision-makers; diversity of the evidence.

4. Diversity of the published evidence relevant disciplines study designs quality criteria sources of information

5. Screening Scoping Evidence from elsewhere Local data Local views Influencing decisions Recommendations Use of evidence in an HIA framework

6. Aim To increase access to good quality reviews of evidence of use in HIA

7. Objective 1 To improve the evidence base for HIA by: a. collating quality criteria for different types of evidence and study design b. developing guidance for robust reviews of evidence for HIA c. piloting and evaluating the resource

8. Objective 2 To improve access to robust evidence for HIA by: a. peer-review of existing reviews of evidence already undertaken for HIA b. publishing these if quality-assured

9. Process for development of Guide Advisory Group A modified Delphi technique Iterative: Versions 1 - 3 Inclusive process Piloting: Version 4 Peer-review: Version 5

10. Consultations on draft Guide HIA practitioners HIA academics Experts on synthesising evidence

11. Format and presentation of guidelines 10 semi-structured interviews with purposive sample of HIA practitioners from 3 areas in England Single set –ie not different for ‘novice’ and ‘experienced’ practitioners Simple English Brief Web-based – but hard copy too

12. Changes in terminology Guide (not guidelines) Brief reviews and more comprehensive review (not rapid and systematic) What was the 3 rd change??

13. Peer-review (v5) Sent to four experts to peer review the resource in September 2005: –a senior public health physician with both an academic and practical interest in HIA; –two experienced HIA practitioners who lead national programmes in other countries in the UK; and –A non-UK academic with extensive HIA experience.

14. Comments from peer review Mostly favourable; No major criticisms Endorsed many points, eg that lower quality primary studies can be important Rearranged order of sections on 1 st 2pp Rephrasing to improve clarity Additional links / resources suggested

15. The 3 column Guide The essential components even for a brief review (minimum standards) Additional elements for a more comprehensive review Links to: –Quality criteria for critical appraisal –Sites to locate existing systematic reviews

16. Supplementary information Glossary Causality Quality criteria All available on LHO website: www.lho.org.uk/HIA/ReviewingEvidence.aspx

17. Next steps Using the Guide to appraise existing reviews Publish these on internet, together with the appraisals Publish the Guide: –in free access web-based journal –In hard copy

18. Further information www.lho.org.uk/HIA/Research_HIA.htm Individual comments on the Guide j.mindell@ucl.ac.uk

19. Steering group Dr J Biddulph, University College London Ms A Boaz, Queen Mary University of London Ms A Boltong, London Health Observatory Prof S Curtis, Queen Mary University of London Dr M Joffe, Imperial College London Dr K Lock, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Ms C McGuire / Mr A Crosier, Department of Health Dr J Mindell, London Health Observatory Ms L Taylor, Health Development Agency

20. This work was undertaken by the steering group listed who received funding from the Department of Health. The views expressed in this presentation are those of the researchers and not necessarily those of the Department of Health.

21. 7th International Health Impact Assessment Conference Health Impact Assessment: Making the Difference Supported by: