Search

Health Impact Assessment is a key approach used internationally to identify positive or negative impacts of policies, plans and proposals on health and well-being. In 2020, HIAs were undertaken in Scotland and Wales to identify the potential health and well-being impacts of the 'stay at home' and physical distancing measures implemented at the start of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. There is sparse evidence evaluating whether the impacts predicted in HIAs occur following policy implementation. This paper evaluates the impacts anticipated in the COVID-19 HIAs against actual observed trends. The processes undertaken were compared and predicted impacts were tabulated by population groups and main determinants of health. Routine data and literature evidence were collated to compare predicted and observed impacts. Nearly all health impacts anticipated in both HIAs have occurred in the direction predicted. There have been significant adverse impacts through multiple direct and indirect pathways including loss of income, social isolation, disruption to education and services, and psychosocial effects. This research demonstrates the value of prediction in impact assessment and fills a gap in the literature by comparing the predicted impacts identified within the HIAs with observed trends. Post-COVID-19 recovery should centre health and well-being within future policies and decisions. Processes like HIA can support this as part of a 'health in all policies' approach to improve the health and well-being of populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current COVID-19 pandemic confines people to their homes, disrupting the fragile social fabric of deprived neighbourhoods and citizen's participation options. In deprived neighbourhoods, community engagement is central in building community resilience, an important resource for health and a prerequisite for effective health promotion programmes. It provides access to vulnerable groups and helps understand experiences, assets, needs and problems of citizens. Most importantly, community activities, including social support, primary care or improving urban space, enhance health through empowerment, strengthened social networks, mutual respect and providing a sense of purpose and meaning. In the context of inequalities associated with COVID-19, these aspects are crucial for citizens of deprived neighbourhoods who often feel their needs and priorities are ignored. In this perspectives paper, illustrated by a varied overview of community actions in the UK and The Netherlands, we demonstrate how citizens, communities and organizations may build resilience and community power. Based on in-depth discussion among the authors we distilled six features of community actions: increase in mutual aid and neighbourhood ties, the central role of community-based organizations (CBOs), changing patterns of volunteering, use of digital media and health promotion opportunities. We argue that in order to enable and sustain resilient and confident, 'disaster-proof', communities, areas which merit investment include supporting active citizens, new (digital) ways of community engagement, transforming formal organizations, alignment with the (local) context and applying knowledge in the field of health promotion in new ways, focussing on learning and co-creation with citizen initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Global shifts toward a disease-oriented, vertical approach to health has involved limiting the right for communities to participate in decision-making. Ecuador's authoritarian legacy has forced civil society and social organizations to adopt 'coping strategies', while large protests recently derived into violent struggles. The country has been severely hit by the COVID-19 pandemic amid corruption scandals involving hospital and food purchases by government during the response. This study critically examines how Ecuador's government took into consideration 'community participation' as a value and tenet of health promotion. Our systematic textual analysis focuses on 53 consecutive resolutions by the National Emergency Operations Committee (EOC) leading the decision-making processes, which, explicitly requires community participation. Results show that the 'lifecycle' of the central government's evolving policy framing centered on law enforcement and the private sector, followed by the social sector. Further, there is no evidence of stakeholders from civil society or organizations taking part in decision-making. Having legitimized the exclusion of community participation in Ecuador's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is possible that the government will fail to consider the wider social implications of its impact. In particular, the limits to local governments becoming informed and making decisions without mediation by the National EOC will further impede community participation in health decision-making in the future. This implies that local knowledge and experiences will also not inform health policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]