Data extraction form A Health Impact Assessment of an environmental management plan the impact on physical activity and of paper: social cohesion Study details Population and Plan details and Outcomes Results Notes setting method of appraisal assessed* Authors Country: Australia Plan: Shellharbour Outcomes measured: HIA process and final Limitations identified Neville, L., Furber, S., Foreshore Management a) Process outcomes: HIA report have by author(s): Thackway, S., Gray, E. Plan, environment (i) Health outcomes assisted in the short considered: Y And Mayne, D. Setting New South management plan with and long term planning (ii) Health Wales- rural/urban some land use issues and implementation Limitations identified recommendations phases of the SFM by review team: incorporated in proposal: Year: (eg urban/rural) plan: Y 2005 Cycle/walkway (iii) Evidence of being Method of appraisal: Landscaping and Evidence gaps &/or implemented: NA Population: HIA community art initiative recommendations for (iv) Post-development (size , characteristics…) were identified in HIA lack Citation: future research: evaluation: NA Health Promotion as key to benefit heath of guidance in literature Journal of Australia, 16 b) Specific outcomes: and were on the weighting or (3). Equity: Aboriginal and recommended for initial prioritising of different (i) Physical activity: Y (ii) Mental wellbeing: Y Torres Strait Islander implementation in the sources of evidence to (iii) Air / noise quality etc: people and people plan assist in formulation of N/R born oversees recommendations. (iv) Unintentional injury: Aim of study: People over 60 Potential for HIA to N/R To describe a Impact on physical (v) Other health: Y prospective HIA on a activity and social Source of funding: Specify: local government cohesion social cohesion environment Non mentioned management plan and HIA report will c) Knowledge outcome: analyses its impact on potentially attract Planners health decision making knowledge or skills: N/R funding for particular process initiatives d) Other outcome: N/R Specify: HIA has brought Study design: together different Case study sources of evidence and HIA provides a
Data extraction form of paper: A Health Impact Assessment of an environmental management plan the impact on physical activity and social cohesion Study details Population and setting Plan details and method of appraisal Outcomes assessed* Results Notes Authors Neville, L., Furber, S., Thackway, S., Gray, E. And Mayne, D. Year: 2005 Citation: Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 16 (3). Aim of study: To describe a prospective HIA on a local government environment management plan and analyses its impact on decision making process Study design: Case study Country: Australia Setting New South Wales- rural/urban (eg urban/rural) Population: (size , characteristics…) Equity: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and people born oversees People over 60 Plan: Shellharbour Foreshore Management Plan, environment management plan with some land use issues Method of appraisal: HIA Outcomes measured: a) Process outcomes: (i) Health outcomes considered: Y (ii) Health recommendations incorporated in proposal: Y (iii) Evidence of being implemented: NA (iv) Post-development evaluation: NA b) Specific outcomes: (i) Physical activity: Y (ii) Mental wellbeing: Y (iii) Air / noise quality etc: N/R (iv) Unintentional injury: N/R (v) Other health: Y Specify: social cohesion c) Knowledge outcome: Planners health knowledge or skills: N/R d) Other outcome: N/R Specify: HIA process and final HIA report have assisted in the short and long term planning and implementation phases of the SFM plan: Cycle/walkway Landscaping and community art initiative were identified in HIA as key to benefit heath and were recommended for initial implementation in the plan Potential for HIA to Impact on physical activity and social cohesion HIA report will potentially attract funding for particular initiatives HIA has brought together different sources of evidence and HIA provides a Limitations identified by author(s): Limitations identified by review team: Evidence gaps &/or recommendations for future research: lack of guidance in literature on the weighting or prioritising of different sources of evidence to assist in formulation of recommendations. Source of funding: Non mentioned