BackgroundThere is mounting evidence to support the lack of awareness among pregnant women about health consequences and long term risks associated with poor oral hygiene during pregnancy. A recognised and important point of influence is their interaction with health professionals, particularly when receiving Antenatal Care. However, there is limited evidence about the perceptions of ANC providers in Australia toward the provision of perinatal oral healthcare. This study was undertaken to explore the knowledge, attitudes and practices of Antenatal Care (ANC) providers in New South Wales (NSW), Australia providing perinatal oral healthcare and to identify barriers to and predictors of their practices in this area.MethodsA cross sectional survey was undertaken of ANC providers (general practitioners, obstetricians/gynaecologists and midwives) practising in NSW, Australia. Participants were recruited through their professional organisations via email, postal mail, and networking at conferences. The survey addressed the domains of knowledge, attitude, barriers and practices towards oral healthcare, along with demographics. Data was entered into SPSS software and analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics.ResultsA total of 393 surveys (17.6% response rate) were completed comprising 124 general practitioners, 74 obstetricians/gynaecologists and 195 midwives. The results showed limited knowledge among ANC providers regarding the impact of poor maternal oral health on pregnancy/infant outcomes. Most (99%) participants agreed that maternal oral health was important yet few were discussing the importance of oral health or advising women to visit a dentist (16.4–21.5%). Further, less than a third felt they had the skills to provide oral health advice during pregnancy. ANC providers who were more knowledgeable about maternal oral health, had training and information in this area and greater experience, were more likely to engage in practices addressing the oral health of pregnant women.ConclusionThe findings suggest that ANC providers in NSW are not focussing on oral health with pregnant women. ANC providers seem willing to discuss oral health if they have appropriate education/training and information in this area. Further research at a national level is required to confirm whether these findings are similar in all Australian states.

BackgroundWhile many guidelines explain how to conduct Health Impact Assessments (HIAs), less is known about the factors that determine the extent to which HIAs affect health considerations in the decision making process. We investigated which factors are associated with increased or reduced effectiveness of HIAs in changing decisions and in the implementation of policies, programs or projects. This study builds on and tests the Harris and Harris-Roxas’ conceptual framework for evaluating HIA effectiveness, which emphasises context, process and output as key domains.MethodsWe reviewed 55 HIA reports in Australia and New Zealand from 2005 to 2009 and conducted surveys and interviews for 48 of these HIAs. Eleven detailed case studies were undertaken using document review and stakeholder interviews. Case study participants were selected through purposeful and snowball sampling. The data were analysed by thematic content analysis. Findings were synthesised and mapped against the conceptual framework. A stakeholder forum was utilised to test face validity and practical adequacy of the findings.ResultsWe found that some features of HIA are essential, such as the stepwise but flexible process, and evidence based approach. Non-essential features that can enhance the impact of HIAs include capacity and experience; ‘right person right level’; involvement of decision-makers and communities; and relationships and partnerships. There are contextual factors outside of HIA such as fit with planning and decision making context, broader global context and unanticipated events, and shared values and goals that may influence a HIA. Crosscutting factors include proactive positioning, and time and timeliness. These all operate within complex open systems, involving multiple decision-makers, levels of decision-making, and points of influence. The Harris and Harris-Roxas framework was generally supported.ConclusionWe have confirmed previously identified factors influencing effectiveness of HIA and identified new factors such as proactive positioning. Our findings challenge some presumptions about ‘right’ timing for HIA and the rationality and linearity of decision-making processes. The influence of right timing on decision making needs to be seen within the context of other factors such as proactive positioning. This research can help HIA practitioners and researchers understand and identify what can be enhanced within the HIA process. Practitioners can adapt the flexible HIA process to accommodate the external contextual factors identified in this report.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-015-2319-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Findings suggest a need for continuing education for dentists and practise guidelines on perinatal oral health. Further research with a national sample is recommended to confirm these findings.

BackgroundHealth Impact Assessment (HIA) involves assessing how proposals may alter the determinants of health prior to implementation and recommends changes to enhance positive and mitigate negative impacts. HIAs growing use needs to be supported by a strong evidence base, both to validate the value of its application and to make its application more robust. We have carried out the first systematic empirical study of the influence of HIA on decision-making and implementation of proposals in Australia and New Zealand. This paper focuses on identifying whether and how HIAs changed decision-making and implementation and impacts that participants report following involvement in HIAs.MethodsWe used a two-step process first surveying 55 HIAs followed by 11 in-depth case studies. Data gathering methods included questionnaires with follow-up interview, semi-structured interviews and document collation. We carried out deductive and inductive qualitative content analyses of interview transcripts and documents as well as simple descriptive statistics.ResultsWe found that most HIAs are effective in some way. HIAs are often directly effective in changing, influencing, broadening areas considered and in some cases having immediate impact on decisions. Even when HIAs are reported to have no direct effect on a decision they are often still effective in influencing decision-making processes and the stakeholders involved in them. HIA participants identify changes in relationships, improved understanding of the determinants of health and positive working relationships as major and sustainable impacts of their involvement.ConclusionsThis study clearly demonstrates direct and indirect effectiveness of HIA influencing decision making in Australia and New Zealand. We recommend that public health leaders and policy makers should be confident in promoting the use of HIA and investing in building capacity to undertake high quality HIAs. New findings about the value HIA stakeholders put on indirect impacts such as learning and relationship building suggest HIA has a role both as a technical tool that makes predictions of potential impacts of a policy, program or project and as a mechanism for developing relationships with and influencing other sectors. Accordingly when evaluating the effectiveness of HIAs we need to look beyond the direct impacts on decisions.