Health impact assessment (HIA) has matured as a form of impact assessment over the past two decades. The use of HIA methods and approaches has expanded rapidly, and it now has applications in both the public and private sectors and in an increasing number of countries around the world. This paper presents an overview of the historical and recent international developments in HIA, before detailing the existing strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to practice. It draws upon the HIA literature, five workshops on ‘Current issues in HIA practice’ held at International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) conferences between 2006 and 2011, and the experience of the authors.

Background: It has been widely acknowledged that refugees are at risk of poorer health outcomes, spanning mental health and general well‐being. A common point of access to health care for the migrant population is via the primary health care network in the country of resettlement. This review aims to synthesize the evidence of primary health care interventions to improve the quality of health care provided to refugees and asylum seekers.Methods: A systematic review was undertaken, and 55 articles were included in the final review. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews was used to guide the reporting of the review, and articles were managed using a reference‐management software (Covidence). The findings were analysed using a narrative empirical synthesis. A quality assessment was conducted for all the studies included.Results: The interventions within the broad primary care setting could be organized into four categories, that is, those that focused on developing the skills of individual refugees/asylum seekers and their families; skills of primary health care workers; system and/or service integration models and structures; and lastly, interventions enhancing communication services. Promoting effective health care delivery for refugees, asylum seekers and their families is a complex challenge faced by primary care professionals, the patients themselves and the communication between them.Conclusion: This review highlights the innovative interventions in primary care promoting refugee health. Primary care interventions mostly focused on upskilling doctors, with a paucity of research exploring the involvement of other health care members. Further research can explore the involvement of interprofessional team members in providing effective refugee/migrant health.Patient or Public Contribution: Patient and public involvement was explored in terms of interventions designed to improve health care delivery for the humanitarian migrant population, that is, specifically refugees and asylum seekers.

Health impact assessment (HIA) practice has expanded across the world, since it was established more than two decades ago. This paper presents a snapshot of current global HIA practice based on the findings of an online questionnaire survey. HIA practitioners from all world regions were invited to participate. A total of 122 HIA practitioners from 29 countries completed the survey, following a broad international outreach effort. The large variety in the types of HIAs conducted, and the application of HIA in various fields reported by respondents, demonstrates that HIA practice has evolved over the past two decades. Although differences in the use of HIA were reported across world regions, an overall increasing trend in global HIA practice can be observed. In order to sustain this upward trend, efforts are needed to address the main barriers in the utilisation of HIA. The establishment of new national and international HIA teaching and training offerings seems to be an obvious strategy to pursue along with the strengthening of policies and legal frameworks that specify the circumstances, under which HIA is required, and to what extent.

The objectives of this review were to map and summarize the existing evidence from a global perspective about inequity in access and delivery of virtual care interventions and to identify strategies that may be adopted by virtual care services to address these inequities. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL using both medical subject headings (MeSH) and free-text keywords for empirical studies exploring inequity in ambulatory services offered virtually. Forty-one studies were included, most of them cross-sectional in design. Included studies were extracted using a customized extraction tool, and descriptive analysis was performed. The review identified widespread differences in accessing and using virtual care interventions among cultural and ethnic minorities, older people, socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, people with limited digital and/or health literacy, and those with limited access to digital devices and good connectivity. Potential solutions addressing these barriers identified in the review included having digitally literate caregivers present during virtual care appointments, conducting virtual care appointments in culturally sensitive manner, and having a focus on enhancing patients’ digital literacy. We identified evidence-based practices for virtual care interventions to ensure equity in access and delivery for their virtual care patients.

While 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. We 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. We 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. We 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.