Use of health impact assessments in the housing sector to promote health in the United States, 2002-2016

被引:4
|
作者
Bever, Emily [1 ]
Arnold, Kimberly T. [2 ]
Lindberg, Ruth [1 ]
Dannenberg, Andrew L. [3 ,4 ]
Morley, Rebecca [5 ]
Breysse, Jill [6 ]
Pollack Porter, Keshia M. [7 ]
机构
[1] Pew Charitable Trusts, Hlth Impact Project, 901 E St NW,10th Floor, Washington, DC 20004 USA
[2] Univ Penn, Dept Psychiat, Perelman Sch Med, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[3] Univ Washington, Dept Environm & Occupat Hlth Sci, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[4] Univ Washington, Dept Urban Design & Planning, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[5] Rebecca Morley Consulting, Columbia, MD USA
[6] Natl Ctr Hlth Housing, Columbia, MD USA
[7] Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Hlth Policy & Management, Baltimore, MD USA
关键词
Community development; Decision-making; Healthy housing; Health impact assessment; Housing policy; Stakeholder engagement;
D O I
10.1007/s10901-020-09795-9
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Housing affects health, yet health is seldom considered in housing decisions. Health impact assessment (HIA) is a tool that can improve housing-related policies, plans, programs, and projects by bringing together scientific data, health expertise, and stakeholder engagement to identify the potential health effects of proposed decisions. We systematically identified and reviewed HIAs of housing decisions in the United States, yielding 54 HIAs between 2002 and 2016. Two examined federal proposals; the others explored decisions in 20 states. A variety of organizations led the HIAs, including non-profits, public health departments, and academic institutions. The primary decision-makers each HIA sought to inform were housing, planning, and/or elected officials. Eighteen HIAs focused on housing policies, codes, design elements, and utilities in residential structures. The remaining 36 HIAs included housing as one element of broader community development and transportation planning decisions. HIA recommendations changed decisions in some cases, and the assessment process helped strengthen connections between public health and housing decision-makers. To illustrate key characteristics of housing HIAs, we purposefully selected three HIAs and described the decisions they informed in detail: off-campus student housing in Flagstaff, Arizona; a rental housing inspections program in Portland, Oregon; and revitalization plans for a major thoroughfare in a suburb of St. Louis, Missouri. With a few exceptions, federal, state, and local agencies in the U.S. are not required to consider the health impacts of housing decisions, such as where housing is sited, how it is designed and constructed, and policies for ensuring that it is affordable and safe. HIA has emerged as a tool for advocates, health and housing practitioners, and policymakers to fill this gap. However, few studies have examined whether HIAs do in fact change housing decisions, shift the way that decision-makers think, or ultimately shift determinants of health (e.g., housing affordability and quality). This review demonstrates that HIAs can facilitate the consideration of health during housing decision-making. Housing HIAs can also help decision-makers address commonly overlooked effects, such as changes to social cohesion, and improve civic participation by engaging communities in the decisionmaking process.
引用
收藏
页码:1277 / 1297
页数:21
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] The use and impact of rapid health technology assessments
    Hailey, D
    Corabian, P
    Harstall, C
    Schneider, W
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 2000, 16 (02) : 651 - 656
  • [42] Criteria for use in the evaluation of health impact assessments
    Parry, JM
    Kemm, JR
    [J]. PUBLIC HEALTH, 2005, 119 (12) : 1122 - 1129
  • [43] Cervical cancer incidence stratified by age in women with HIV compared with the general population in the United States, 2002-2016
    Stier, Elizabeth A.
    Engels, Eric
    Horner, Marie-Josephe
    Robinson, William T.
    Qiao, Baozhen
    Hayes, Jennifer
    Bayakly, Rana
    Anderson, Bridget J.
    Gonsalves, Lou
    Pawlish, Karen S.
    Zavala, Diego
    Monterosso, Analise
    Shiels, Meredith S.
    [J]. AIDS, 2021, 35 (11) : 1851 - 1856
  • [44] Groundwater level changes with a focus on agricultural areas in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States, 2002-2016
    Dong, Yan
    Jiang, Chengsheng
    Suri, Mayhah R.
    Pee, Daphne
    Meng, Lingkui
    Goldstein, Rachel E. Rosenberg
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH, 2019, 171 : 193 - 203
  • [45] Government Patent Use to Promote Public Health in the United States: Overcoming Nonpatent Exclusivities
    Wolitz, Rebecca E.
    Kesselheim, Aaron S.
    Darrow, Jonathan J.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2022, 112 (08) : 1110 - 1114
  • [46] Trends in Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Hospitalizations in the United States, 2002-2016
    Ahuja, Keerat Rai
    Saad, Anas M.
    Nazir, Salik
    Ariss, Robert W.
    Shekhar, Shashank
    Isogai, Toshiaki
    Kassis, Nicholas
    Mahmood, Asif
    Sheikh, Mujeeb
    Kapadia, Samir R.
    [J]. CURRENT PROBLEMS IN CARDIOLOGY, 2022, 47 (12)
  • [47] Health Consequence Scales for Use in Health Impact Assessments of Climate Change
    Brown, Helen
    Spickett, Jeffery
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2014, 11 (09) : 9607 - 9620
  • [48] Marketing Behavioral Health Implications of Evidence Assessments for Behavioral Health Care in the United States
    Leff, Stephen
    Conley, Jeremy
    Hennessy, Kevin
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MENTAL HEALTH, 2006, 35 (02) : 6 - 20
  • [49] Comparing health and health care use in Canada and the United States
    Sanmartin, Claudia
    Berthelot, Jean-Marie
    Ng, Edward
    Murphy, Kellie
    Blackwell, Debra L.
    Gentleman, Jane F.
    Martinez, Michael E.
    Simile, Catherine M.
    [J]. HEALTH AFFAIRS, 2006, 25 (04) : 1133 - 1142
  • [50] Health impact of peptic ulcer in the United States
    Sonnenberg, A
    Everhart, JE
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 1997, 92 (04): : 614 - 620