Talk:Health impact assessment

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

HIA Page Conventions

""a HIA" vs. "an HIA" Should we refer to an individual health impact assessment as "an HIA" or as "a HIA"? "An" sounds more natural in verbal speech but "a" seems more correct if we consider the words that make up the acronym. Your thoughts? - Ben Harris-Roxas

Ooh! These issues are always tricky. I agree with you that "a HIA" would be the correct grammatical form and for consistency this is the form that will work whether HIA is spelled out fully or used as an abbreviation. Salim Vohra

HIA Page Contents

Contemporary Debates To what extent do you think this page should reflect some of the contemporary debates in HIA? For example should we include a section explaining that some practitioners have differing opinions about the methods and data that should be used in a HIA, the role of community participation, etc. The other alternative is that we keep it generic enough for it to be agreeable to all contributors. Your thoughts? - Ben Harris-Roxas

Yes I think it would be good to have a section on contemporary debates, in fact I think it's crucial. One example would be the values of HIA e.g. equitable, democratic, sustainable, ethical use of evidence or is it objective and neutral; the second whether it is community-led and expert-informed (HIA as community advocacy and decision-influencing)or community-informed and expert-led (HIA as decision-support). The examples given are presented as dichotomies/opposites but I think maybe the differences are more of nuance and emphasis rather than radical differences. I don't have enough of a feel about the whole range of practitioner views to be certain of this. Salim Vohra

HIA seeker of truth?

In the overview there is a sentence which I have difficulty with

"The main objective of HIA is not to seek a "truth" or to generate original scientific information."

1. I think the first part of this sentence could be misleading. Here's why, my sense is that you mean by the above statement that HIA is not research and therefore does not seek universal truths about health impacts. That is true but HIA does aim to apply research findings and more 'universal/general truths' to local contexts to produce 'local truths' about potential local health impacts.

2. I think the second part should be caveated with 'generally' as research is not embedded in HIA because of time and resource constraints not because the approach/philosophy restricts it.

I don't know if I've completely missed the point or the issues I raise are reasonable. Salim Vohra

I have now made some changes to this paragraph as no one has posted any discussion comments disagreeing with the points I raised a month ago 8th Sep 2006. Salim Vohra

The additions have improved the section - much better than before. Ben Harris-Roxas 06:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK Health Legislation

Does anyone else find it strange that when considering the exact letter of the law, there is more legislative requirement to assess the health and wellbeing of badgers then there is for people? (Andrew Buroni) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buronia (talk • contribs) 11:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

HIA and Health Technology Assessment what is common and what is different?

HIA and HTA share common techniques in their "assessment". Therefore I suggest adding a statement, which explains differences and common grounds. would you agree? --Eumedes 13:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly - could you draft some text for the page? Ben Harris-Roxas (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Health impact assessment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]