American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Volume 38, Issue 1 , Pages 78-84, January 2010

Standard Tool for Quantification in Health Impact Assessment:

A Review

  • Stefan K. Lhachimi, MPP, MSc

      Affiliations

    • Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
    • National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence and reprint requests to: Stefan K. Lhachimi, MPP, MSc, Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
  • ,
  • Wilma J. Nusselder, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
  • ,
  • Hendriek C. Boshuizen, PhD

      Affiliations

    • National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands
  • ,
  • Johan P. Mackenbach, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Background

The health impact assessment (HIA) of policy proposals is becoming common practice. HIA represents a broad approach with quantification of the impact of policy options at its core. However, no standard tool is available and it remains unclear whether any current model can serve as a standard for the field.

Purpose

The aim of this study is to assess whether already existing models can be used as a standard tool for the quantification step in an HIA.

Methods

A search in 2008 identified 20 models for HIA, of which six are sufficiently generic to allow for various and multiple diseases and different risk factors: Age-Related Morbidity and Death Analysis, Global Burden of Disease, Population Health Modeling, PREVENT, Proportional Life Table Method, and the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (the Netherlands) Chronic Disease Model. These were evaluated along three proposed model structure criteria (real-life population, dynamic projection, explicit risk-factor states) and three usability criteria (modest data requirements, rich model output, generally accessible) developed to address the needs and requirements of the HIA framework.

Results

Of the six generic models investigated, none fulfills all the proposed criteria as a standard HIA tool. The models are either technically advanced with no or limited accessibility, or they are accessible but oversimplified.

Conclusions

Further work on models for HIA with equal emphasis on technical appropriateness, availability of data, and end-user–friendly implementation is warranted if the field is to move forward.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0749-3797(09)00634-5

doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.08.030

American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Volume 38, Issue 1 , Pages 78-84, January 2010