Health Impact Assessment, Human Rights and Global Public Policy: A Critical appraisal/Evaluation De L'impact Sanitaire, Droits De L'homme et Politique D'interet Mondial : Etude critique/Evaluacion del Impacto Sanitario, Derechos Humanos Y Politica Publica Mundial: Analisis Critico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Health impact assessment (HIA) is combination of procedures, methods and tools by which a policy, programme or project may be judged as to its potential effects on the health of a population, and the distribution of those effects within the population. (1) The main purpose of undertaking HIA is to move towards healthier societies through the development of public policy--in other words, the development of policies, programmes and projects that take account of their likely or actual impacts on health. If the use of HIA is to achieve its potential, assessments need to be undertaken at regional and global levels as well as at local and national levels. Although several alternative models exist, the HIA process includes: * the obtainment of an agreement on the scope of the HIA terms of depth, duration, spatial and temporal boundaries, methods and outputs; * an analysis of policy context and content; * a profile of areas and communities likely to be affected by the policy; * the collection of qualitative and quantitative data on potential impacts and their distribution from stakeholders, key informants and existing evidence; * an evaluation of the importance, scale and likelihood (and, if possible, costs) of potential impacts; * the development of options and recommendations for action; and * a framework for monitoring and evaluation following implementation of recommendations. HIA is an important public policy tool because it can: (2) * promote equity, sustainability and healthy public policy an unequal and frequently unhealthy world; * improve the quality of decision-making health and partner organizations by incorporating the need to address health issues into planning and policy-making; * emphasize social and environmental justice (it is usually those who are already disadvantaged who suffer most from negative health impacts); * encourage public participation debates about public policy issues; * give equal status to both qualitative and quantitative assessment methods; * make values and politics explicit, and open issues to public scrutiny; * demonstrate that health-relevant policy is far broader than health-care issues. HIA is used public policy decision-making a wide and rapidly increasing range of and less countries throughout the world. HIA has had a high profile developing countries since the 1980s, where it was used mainly as part of development projects. In developed countries, HIA became popular during the past 15 years Australia, Canada, New Zealand and several European countries, such as the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Since 2000, HIA has been used the United States. In all of these countries the chief focus of HIA has been on the impacts affecting the physical environment, such as transport and urban development. Using HIA this way helps spread understanding of the determinants of health among policy-makers working outside the health ministries and encourages them to take account of health impacts on residents. However, HIA remains relatively inward-looking; for example, it does not engage with the health impacts of foreign policy. This applies in the UK, Europe and worldwide. (3) The European Commission has implemented proposals to undertake integrated impact assessments of all European policies. (4) Integrated impact assessments involve relatively superficial evaluations of the impact of policies along several different dimensions. The European Commission's initiative was partly response to the range of assessments--for example, environmental, health, gender and economic--being carried out on new European policies. However, major policies require more in-depth assessments, and the European Commission has also funded the development of a European policy HIA methodology. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.228 | 0.217 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.034 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".