Search

The health impact assessment (HIA) is increasingly recognized around the world as an effective governance tool to incorporate Health in All Policies to address the wider determinants of health. However, it is still poorly recognized and practiced in many developing countries, including Sri Lanka, where its applicability is most appropriate considering the complexity of social determinants of health and inequalities. This comparative case study aimed to explore the barriers for implementation of HIA in Sri Lanka in the areas of supportive policy framework, institutional infrastructure, capacity-building, and multi-sectoral collaboration and to compare them with a successful HIA system in a developed country (Wales) with a view toward identifying the "best practices" applicable in a developing country context. The case study revealed that there is an emerging government commitment in Sri Lanka to embrace the Health in All Policies approach and much potential in the health system to develop a centrally dedicated expert team with peripheral counterparts and multi-sectoral collaboration, which were the primary pillars of success in the Welsh system. However, there is a great need for capacity-building and for development of country-specific tools, which would facilitate the establishment and sustainability of HIA processes in Sri Lanka. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To systematically review international evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions targeting the mental health, wellbeing, and retention of child and family social workers and their impact on child and family outcomes. Method: Systematic review and narrative synthesis of quantitative comparative studies. Published or unpublished research was sought via 12 bibliographic databases, websites, contact with experts, and citation tracking. Studies in any language were eligible for inclusion. Quality was assessed using Cochrane appraisal tools. Results: Fifteen studies were identified from 24 papers. Three studies considered individual-level interventions, with mixed and inconclusive findings. Eleven considered organisational interventions, with mixed but more promising findings. One study considered community-level interventions, with positive findings but a serious risk of bias. Only one study considered costs. Conclusion: The quality of evidence overall does not warrant clear recommendations for services. Organisation-level interventions show some promise. Robust, high-quality interventional studies are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]