Peer Review Processes in Health Impact Assessments: A Survey of Practitioners and Development of a Framework

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) helps elucidate potential public health consequences of myriad policies, projects and plans. The practice is growing rapidly in the U.S., with nearly 300 HIAs conducted since its inception in 1999. Peer review can help develop and align the field with its principles and standards. However, its application within a complex and diverse HIA practice is not well understood. To address this gap and build a framework for HIA peer review, a working group of the Society of Practitioners of HIA (SOPHIA) surveyed practitioners using a semi-structured online questionnaire, disseminated via email, newsletters, and websites. Conducted from May through July 2013, the survey examined the perceived value and various applications of peer review in HIA. Among 26 respondents, all had formally reviewed HIAs, while three-quarters (20) practiced HIA. Most agreed that peer review could improve HIA quality (78%) and that a standardized process would be beneficial (58%). Open-ended responses revealed that peer review addressed assessor and stakeholder concerns and questions while incorporating different perspectives, ensuring accuracy, completeness, validity, credibility, alignment with best practices, appropriate language and framing, and relevant recommendations. The utility of reviews depended on their coordination and timing and matching of reviewer competencies. The survey also identified needed improvements, including clarifying the purpose and scope and recognizing the difference between process, technical content, and editorial reviews. The working group then developed and disseminated, via SOPHIA convenings and networks, a peer review framework to support the evolution of HIA, other impact assessment approaches, and post-normal sciences.