Search

Since the early 1980s we have witnessed a proliferation of 'Theme Cities' with the WHO 'Healthy Cities' networks a very early adopter, together with local government initiatives that focused on environmental health and sustainability. These days such networks range very broadly, from Citta Slow and Child-Friendly Cities to sustainable, resilient, festival, happy, garden, winter, safe, inclusive and many more theme-centered international networks of local governments and communities. We undertook a political analysis of the extent to which these networks formally recognise and address the drivers of inequity in societies around the world, and to which extent they are ready to act truly glocally. We found that 'Sustainable Cities' rank highly, with WHO/EURO and PAHO style 'Healthy Cities' a close second. 'Transition Towns and Communities' are in a category of their own and can be considered a potentially important political voice for glocal health equity. Key messages Healthy Cities are Theme Cities - but not all do well to promote health equity. Sustainability and health (as per the SDGs) have enormous glocal health potential.

Health impact assessment as a public health tool to contribute to development of healthy public policy and later health in all policies approach entered public health practice, research, education and policy at the end of 1990'. During last 20 years the methodology spread around the globe, tools and guidelines have been developed, potential collaboration with other impact assessments discussed or even legally mandated. A quick search in PubMed using a MESH keyword “Health impact assessment” conducted in January 21, 2020 yielded 628 publications in time period of 2010-2019. Reading the abstract of last 100 from 2019 and partially 2018 based on first authors, manuscripts came from 31 countries of all five continents, USA being the most frequent contributor. This quick search revealed also substantial heterogeneity of the use of term; epidemiological studies, often environmental epidemiological ones, health care intervention evaluation studies, methodological development studies, general evaluation studies are often using health impact assessment label. Out of 100 abstracts, 14 seemed to be in-line with description of HIA by Gothenburg consensus paper, the basic document of HIA. On one hand, this is very positive showing the wide possibilities of use of HIA. On other hand however, it is hazardous as it could lead to misunderstandings and consequently to decreased interest for the methodology. With this regard it shall be noted that after a plateau in number of publications between 2014-2017, there seems to be a consistent decline of new research papers addressing using HIA. Looking at one database only can be a limitation of course. The aim of this round table workshop is to discuss where to go with HIA during coming years, identify potential facilitators for broader implementation and use of the methodology. After introductory presentation by workshop coordinators, five presentations will discuss potential facilitators such as common language and expectations, implementation and place of HIA within public health toolkit, capacity building and recent opportunities such as health in EIA and the SDG's. The final part of the round table will be as general discussion with involvement of the audience facilitated by workshop organizer. Key messages HIA is used for different purposes, not only the one described by Gothenburg consensus paper. There is a substantial heterogeneity in use of HIA influenced by language, implementation method, available capacities and motivation.