La evaluación del impacto en salud, una herramienta eficaz para otientar la toma de decisiones

Resumen del encuentro en Sevilla sobre Diálogo de Política Internacional sobre la Evaluación de Impacto en Salud. organizado por el Observatorio Europeo de Sistemas y Políticas de Salud con la colaboración de la OMS, la Comisión Europea y la Consejería de Salud

Manual para la evaluación del impacto en salud de proyectos sometidos a instrumentos de prevención y control ambiental en Andalucía

Este Manual se complementa con los siguientes documentos de apoyo: 1. Actuaciones y requerimientos (Lista de actuaciones con indicación de los requerimientos que deben cumplir respecto a la EIS); 3. Indicadores (Batería de indicadores y estándares para la evaluación y la relevancia de los impactos); y 4. Análisis en profundidad (Resumen de las etapas de una evaluación de riesgos). Publicado en la página Web de la Consejería de Salud : www.juntadeandalucia.es/salud (Ciudadanía / Nuestra Salud / Evaluación de impacto en salud)

Manual para la evaluación del impacto en salud de los instrumentos de planeamiento urbanístico en Andalucía

Este Manual se complementa con varios documentos de apoyo: 1. Dimensiones y áreas que pueden verse afectadas por el planeamiento urbanístico; 3. Batería de indicadores y estándares para la evaluación de la relevancia de los impactos; y 4. Análisis en profundidad. Publicado en la página Web de la Consejería de Salud: www.juntadeandalucia.es/salud (Ciudadanía / Nuestra Salud / Evaluación de impacto en salud)

Institucionalización de la evaluación del impacto en la salud en Andalucía.

Health impact assessment (HIA) aims to incorporate people's health and wellbeing as a key feature in policy-making. Many authors believe that HIA might be systematically integrated into all decision-making processes as a way to achieve that goal. To that end, there is need to overcome a number of challenges, including the fact that Andalusia (Spain) has made HIA compulsory by law, the need for awareness of all public sectors whose decisions might have substantial impacts on health and for a methodology that would enable a comprehensive approach to health determinants and inequalities, and the training of both the public health staff and professional sectors responsible for its application. In Andalusia, a law provides mandatory and binding health impact reports for most authorisation procedures in different areas: from sectoral plans to urban planning schemes, and especially projects subject to environmental assessment. Implementation of this law has required its integration into authorisation procedures, the training of interdisciplinary working groups in public health, the preparation of technical guidelines, and the organisation of dissemination and training seminars for developers.

Oral and general health-related quality of life in patients treated for oral cancer compared to control group.

BACKGROUND Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is gaining importance as a valuable outcome measure in oral cancer area. The aim of this study was to assess the general and oral HRQoL of oral and oropharyngeal cancer patients 6 or more months after treatment and compare them with a population free from this disease. METHODS A cross-sectional study was carried out with patients treated for oral cancer at least 6 months post-treatment and a gender and age group matched control group. HRQoL was measured with the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12); oral HRQoL (OHRQoL) was evaluated using the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) and the Oral Impacts on Daily Performances (OIDP). Multivariable regression models assessed the association between the outcomes (SF-12, OHIP-14 and OIDP) and the exposure (patients versus controls), adjusting for sex, age, social class, functional tooth units and presence of illness. RESULTS For patients (n = 142) and controls (n = 142), 64.1% were males. The mean age was 65.2 (standard deviation (sd): 12.9) years in patients and 67.5 (sd: 13.7) years in controls. Patients had worse SF-12 Physical Component Summary scores than controls even in fully the adjusted model [β-coefficient = -0.11 (95% CI: -5.12-(-0.16)]. The differences in SF-12 Mental Component Summary were not statistically significant. Regarding OHRQoL patients had 11.63 (95% CI: 6.77-20.01) higher odds for the OHIP-14 and 21.26 (95% CI: 11.54-39.13) higher odds for OIDP of being in a worse category of OHRQoL compared to controls in the fully adjusted model. CONCLUSION At least 6 months after treatment, oral cancer patients had worse OHRQoL, worse physical HRQoL and similar psychological HRQoL than the general population.