Health Impact Assessment: A Missed Opportunity for MCH Professionals in Their Quest to Address the Social Determinants of Health

• Type of Material: Article
• Authors: James Dills, Emory University; Taylor M Lawson, Emory University; Jane Branscomb, Georgia State University; Amy Mullenix, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill; Kristen Hassmiller Lich, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill
• Language: English
• Date: 2022-01-24
• Publisher: Springer (part of Springer Nature)
• Publication Version: Final Published Version
• Copyright Statement: © The Author(s) 2022
• License: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
• Final Published Version (URL): http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10995-021-03350-w
• Title of Journal or Parent Work: MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH JOURNAL
• Volume: 26
• Issue: Suppl 1
• Start Page: 88
• End Page: 113
• Keywords: Systems integration; Social determinants of health; Equity; Policy; Health in all policies; Health impact assessment; Maternal and child health workforce
• Research Categories: Health Sciences, Public Health

Abstract

Introduction Public health professionals, especially ones concerned with maternal and child health (MCH), need to engage in cross-sector collaborations to address social determinants of health. Health Impact Assessment (HIA) systematically brings public health perspectives into non-health decision-making contexts that influence social determinants. Alignment of MCH and HIA practice has not previously been documented. Methods An exploratory review of HIAs conducted in the United States considered several dimensions of MCH-HIA alignment and produced data to test the hypothesis that HIAs involving MCH stakeholders are more likely to address MCH populations and relevant measures. The review examined three key variables for each HIA: inclusion of MCH-focused stakeholders, level of focus on MCH populations, and presence of MCH-relevant content. Results Of the 424 HIAs included in the database of US HIAs, 350 were included in this review. Twenty-four percent (84) included MCH-focused stakeholders, and 42% (148) focused on MCH populations. Ninety percent (317) included metrics or content relevant to at least one Title V National Performance Measure (NPM). HIAs that clearly included MCH stakeholders had seven times the odds of including both a focus on MCH populations and at least one NPM-relevant topic compared to HIAs that did not clearly include MCH stakeholders (OR 6.98; 95% CI 3.99, 12.20). Discussion Despite low engagement of MCH stakeholders in HIAs, many still consider MCH populations and measures. Intentional engagement of MCH workforce in HIAs could ensure greater alignment with existing MCH priorities (such as addressing the social determinants of health and equity) in a given jurisdiction.