IntroductionThe Center for Community Health and Evaluation conducted a 3-year evaluation to assess results of health impact assessments (HIAs) in the United States and to identify elements critical for their success.MethodsThe study used a retrospective, mixed-methods comparative case study design, including a literature review; site visits; interviews with investigators, stakeholders, and decision makers for 23 HIAs in 16 states that were completed from 2005 through 2013; and a Web-based survey of 144 HIA practitioners.ResultsAnalysis of interviews with decision makers suggests HIAs can directly influence decisions in nonhealth-related sectors. HIAs may also influence changes beyond the decision target, build consensus and relationships among decision makers and their constituents, and give community members a stronger voice in decisions that affect them. Factors that may increase HIA success include care in choosing a project or policy to be examined’ selecting an appropriate team to conduct the HIA; engaging stakeholders and decision makers throughout the process; crafting clear, actionable recommendations; delivering timely, compelling messages to appropriate audiences; and using multiple dissemination methods. Challenges to successful HIAs include underestimating the level of effort required, political changes during the conduct of the HIA, accessing relevant local data, engaging vulnerable populations, and following up on recommendations.ConclusionResults of this study suggest HIAs are a useful tool to promote public health because they can influence decisions in nonhealth-related sectors, strengthen cross-sector collaborations, and raise awareness of health issues among decision makers.

Equity is a core value of Health Impact Assessment (HIA). Many compelling moral, economic, and health arguments exist for prioritizing and incorporating equity considerations in HIA practice. Decision-makers, stakeholders, and HIA practitioners see the value of HIAs in uncovering the impacts of policy and planning decisions on various population subgroups, developing and prioritizing specific actions that promote or protect health equity, and using the process to empower marginalized communities. There have been several HIA frameworks developed to guide the inclusion of equity considerations. However, the field lacks clear indicators for measuring whether an HIA advanced equity. This article describes the development of a set of equity metrics that aim to guide and evaluate progress toward equity in HIA practice. These metrics also intend to further push the field to deepen its practice and commitment to equity in each phase of an HIA. Over the course of a year, the Society of Practitioners of Health Impact Assessment (SOPHIA) Equity Working Group took part in a consensus process to develop these process and outcome metrics. The metrics were piloted, reviewed, and refined based on feedback from reviewers. The Equity Metrics are comprised of 23 measures of equity organized into four outcomes: (1) the HIA process and products focused on equity; (2) the HIA process built the capacity and ability of communities facing health inequities to engage in future HIAs and in decision-making more generally; (3) the HIA resulted in a shift in power benefiting communities facing inequities; and (4) the HIA contributed to changes that reduced health inequities and inequities in the social and environmental determinants of health. The metrics are comprised of a measurement scale, examples of high scoring activities, potential data sources, and example interview questions to gather data and guide evaluators on scoring each metric.

When planning and evaluating community-level initiatives focused on policy and environment change, it is useful to have estimates of the impact on behavioral outcomes of particular strategies (e.g., building a new walking trail to promote physical activity). We have created a measure of estimated strategy-level impact-''population dose''-based on our work in evaluating obesity prevention initiatives that uses elements of the RE-AIM method of combining reach and effectiveness to estimate the impact of a strategy on risk behaviors within a target population. We provide a definition and examples of measuring population dose, discuss measurement options in the face of uncertainty about key parameters, review ways of increasing population dose, and illustrate how the concept of population dose has been used in the Kaiser Permanente Community Health Initiative.

Objective: The present study reports on the important issue of how family communication and support regarding breast cancer risk affects interest in genetic testing and mental health. Methods: Participants (n = 221) were women aged 18–74 who had at least one relative of Ashkenazi Jewish descent, no personal history of breast or ovarian cancer, and lived within 60 miles of Seattle, Wash. Results: Communication about breast cancer risk was reported with very low frequency across all types of relatives. Women talked with their mothers and sisters more often than their fathers, brothers, or children. The only significant predictor of interest in genetic testing was the individual level variable of seeking social support. Conclusion: Social support needs might be a part of the genetic testing process.

No abstract

Steps to Health King County (Steps KC; Seattle, Washington) was one of 40 community-level initiatives funded in 2003 as part of the Steps to a HealthierUS initiative. Steps KC goals included reducing the impact of chronic diseases through a comprehensive, coordinated approach and reducing health disparities due to chronic illness. Steps KC intervention activities took place on two levels: the overall Steps KC collaborative and individual funded programs. Collaborative-level activities included policy and systems change initiatives and efforts to better integrate the funded-program organizations. The funded programs ranged from group health promotion programs to intensive case management. Steps KC was successful in creating a large, diverse community collaborative and funding 14 separate programs that reached approximately 8,000 community residents with medium- and high-intensity programs of demonstrated effectiveness. Systems change initiatives within school districts and government agencies led to a greater institutional emphasis on health promotion and on partnership with communities to address health inequities.

T he purpose of this article is to describe the design and implementation of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's (RWJF) Allies Against Asthma crosssite evaluation. The Allies Against Asthma (Allies) program consists of seven coalition sites, each comprising various stakeholders such as local health care providers, schools and day care centers, community advocacy groups, businesses, local government organizations, managed care organizations, academic institutions, parent groups, and other community-based organizations, which aim to combat pediatric asthma. The evaluation approach for Allies was designed collaboratively by

Activities addressing pediatric asthma are often fragmented. Allies coalitions promoted integration, the alignment of concurrent asthma control activities across and within sectors. Systems integration describes activities from an organizational perspective. Activities included developing a shared vision, promoting consistency in asthma education and self-management support, improving adherence to clinical guidelines, advocating jointly for policy change, and seeking funds collaboratively. Service integration describes activities focused on ensuring seamless, comprehensive services through coordination within and across organizations. Activities included use of community health workers (CHWs) and nurses for care coordination, program cross-referral, and clinical quality improvement. Integration is a sustainable role for coalitions as it requires fewer resources than service delivery and results in institutionalization of system changes. Organizations that seek integration of asthma control may benefit.