Characteristics and use of urban health indicator tools by municipal built environment policy and decision-makers: a systematic review protocol

BackgroundThere is wide agreement that there is a lack of attention to health in municipal environmental policy-making, such as urban planning and regeneration. Explanations for this include differing professional norms between health and urban environment professionals, system complexity and limited evidence for causality between attributes of the built environment and health outcomes. Data from urban health indicator (UHI) tools are potentially a valuable form of evidence for local government policy and decision-makers. Although many UHI tools have been specifically developed to inform policy, there is poor understanding of how they are used. This study aims to identify the nature and characteristics of UHI tools and their use by municipal built environment policy and decision-makers.MethodsHealth and social sciences databases (ASSIA, Campbell Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus, Social Policy and Practice and Web of Science Core Collection) will be searched for studies using UHI tools alongside hand-searching of key journals and citation searches of included studies. Advanced searches of practitioner websites and Google will also be used to find grey literature. Search results will be screened for UHI tools, and for studies which report on or evaluate the use of such tools. Data about UHI tools will be extracted to compile a census and taxonomy of existing tools based on their specific characteristics and purpose. In addition, qualitative and quantitative studies about the use of these tools will be appraised using quality appraisal tools produced by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and synthesised in order to gain insight into the perceptions, value and use of UHI tools in the municipal built environment policy and decision-making process. This review is not registered with PROSPERO.DiscussionThis systematic review focuses specifically on UHI tools that assess the physical environment’s impact on health (such as transport, housing, air quality and greenspace). This study will help indicator producers understand whether this form of evidence is of value to built environment policy and decision-makers and how such tools should be tailored for this audience.Systematic review registrationN/A.

[1]  Amit Prasad,et al.  Metrics in Urban Health: Current Developments and Future Prospects. , 2016, Annual review of public health.

[2]  M. Petticrew,et al.  Cultures of evidence across policy sectors: systematic review of qualitative evidence. , 2014, European journal of public health.

[3]  Amit Prasad,et al.  Urban health indicators and indices—current status , 2015, BMC Public Health.

[4]  M. Northridge,et al.  Sorting out the connections between the built environment and health: A conceptual framework for navigating pathways and planning healthy cities , 2003, Journal of Urban Health.

[5]  T. Lorenc,et al.  A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers , 2014, BMC Health Services Research.

[6]  G. Phillips,et al.  Working for the public health: politics, localism and epistemologies of practice. , 2015, Sociology of health & illness.

[7]  Hugh Barton,et al.  Healthy Urban Planning: Setting the Scene , 2005 .

[8]  Hannah Badland,et al.  Planning Healthy, Liveable and Sustainable Cities: How Can Indicators Inform Policy? , 2015 .

[9]  John Mullin,et al.  Measuring the Effectiveness of Downtown Revitalization Strategies , 2003 .

[10]  Chris Webster,et al.  UK Biobank Urban Morphometric Platform (UKBUMP) – a nationwide resource for evidence-based healthy city planning and public health interventions , 2015, Ann. GIS.

[11]  Sharon Friel,et al.  Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health , 2008, The Lancet.

[12]  Apho.  The good indicators guide: understanding how to use and choose indicators , 2008 .

[13]  M. Petticrew,et al.  Trading quality for relevance: non-health decision-makers’ use of evidence on the social determinants of health , 2015, BMJ Open.

[14]  Roderick J Lawrence,et al.  Urban Environmental Health Indicators: Appraisal and Policy Directives , 2008, Reviews on environmental health.

[15]  Luuk Boelens,et al.  Environmental health in the complex city: a co-evolutionary approach , 2016 .

[16]  G. Dunton,et al.  A systematic review of built environment factors related to physical activity and obesity risk: implications for smart growth urban planning , 2011, Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity.

[17]  K. Camargo.  Closing the gap in a generation: Health equity through action on the social determinants of health , 2011 .

[18]  J. Dávila,et al.  Shaping cities for health: complexity and the planning of urban environments in the 21st century , 2012, The Lancet.

[19]  R. Bhatia.  Case study: San Francisco's use of neighborhood indicators to encourage healthy urban development. , 2014, Health affairs.

[20]  B. Giles-Corti,et al.  Urban liveability: emerging lessons from Australia for exploring the potential for indicators to measure the social determinants of health. , 2014, Social science & medicine.

[21]  D. Booher,et al.  Indicators for Sustainable Communities: A Strategy Building on Complexity Theory and Distributed Intelligence , 2000 .

[22]  S. Galea,et al.  Urban health: evidence, challenges, and directions. , 2005, Annual review of public health.