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.Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is an approach used 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 (commonly called ‘lockdown’) which were put in place at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper evaluates whether these assessments were correct in their predictions. It finds that most of the health impacts anticipated in both assessments have occurred. These include significant impacts on income, employment and mental health. Using HIAs can help policymakers to take full account of these wider impacts on health and develop policies that benefit health and health equity.

Objectives We aimed to estimate what proportion of people with SLE attending UK rheumatology clinics would be categorized as being at high risk from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and therefore asked to shield, and explore what implications this has for rheumatology clinical practice. Methods We used data from the British Society for Rheumatology multicentre audit of SLE, which included a large, representative cross-sectional sample of patients attending UK Rheumatology clinics with SLE. We calculated who would receive shielding advice using the British Society for Rheumatology’s risk stratification guidance and accompanying scoring grid, and assessed whether ethnicity and history of nephritis were over-represented in the shielding group. Results The audit included 1003 patients from 51 centres across all 4 nations of the UK. Overall 344 (34.3%) patients had a shielding score ≥3 and would have been advised to shield. People with previous or current LN were 2.6 (1.9–3.4) times more likely to be in the shielding group than people with no previous LN (P Conclusion Our study demonstrates the large number of people with SLE who are likely to be shielding. Implications for clinical practice include considering communication across language and cultural differences, and ways to conduct renal assessment including urinalysis, during telephone and video consultations for patients who are shielding.