Scholarlink

Background <p>Existing research indicates that both subject trust and procedural justice exert an influence on government staff’s level of identification with health impact assessment (HIA) policies, revealing notable differences in attitudes, comprehension levels and preferences for implementing HIA policies among staff from different sectors. There is an urgent requirement to develop an integrated research model that systematically investigates the extent of HIA policy identification and its underlying drivers, commencing with the perspectives of staff from health and nonhealth sectors alike.</p> Methods <p>A questionnaire survey using a multistage stratified random sampling method was conducted among health sector staff (<i>n</i> = 247) and nonhealth sector staff (<i>n</i> = 408) in Zhejiang province in China. Univariate analysis was used to describe differences in HIA policy identification between the two groups. A multigroup analysis within a structural equation model tested the similarities and differences of influencing factors on HIA policy identification in different sectors.</p> Results <p>Health sector staff (4.26 ± 0.59) demonstrated a significantly higher level of policy cognition regarding HIA than nonhealth sector staff (3.96 ± 0.63). Conversely, nonhealth sector staff (3.72 ± 0.73) exhibited significantly higher levels of policy evaluation than health sector staff (3.47 ± 0.88). Subject trust positively influenced the three dimensions of HIA policy identification for both groups. However, procedural justice only positively influenced the policy sentiment and evaluation of health sector staff, with no significant impact on nonhealth sector staff. Additionally, other factors, such as position, education, work experience and familiarity with HIA, impacted HIA policy identification across sectors.</p> Conclusions <p>This study confirms that subject trust can enhance policy identification and cooperative behaviour. On the basis of this, the health sector should strive to understand the policy objectives of other sectors to seize opportunities for action, thereby enabling nonhealth sectors to participate in the actions of the health sector.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Exploring factors influencing health impact assessment policy identification in China: a comparative study of health and nonhealth sectors

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月11日

查看全文
  • Yanyun Xu,
  • Liyuan Song,
  • Xiang Liu,
  • Yingzi Liu,
  • Siyu Zhou,
  • Meng Zhang

摘要

Background

Existing research indicates that both subject trust and procedural justice exert an influence on government staff’s level of identification with health impact assessment (HIA) policies, revealing notable differences in attitudes, comprehension levels and preferences for implementing HIA policies among staff from different sectors. There is an urgent requirement to develop an integrated research model that systematically investigates the extent of HIA policy identification and its underlying drivers, commencing with the perspectives of staff from health and nonhealth sectors alike.

Methods

A questionnaire survey using a multistage stratified random sampling method was conducted among health sector staff (n = 247) and nonhealth sector staff (n = 408) in Zhejiang province in China. Univariate analysis was used to describe differences in HIA policy identification between the two groups. A multigroup analysis within a structural equation model tested the similarities and differences of influencing factors on HIA policy identification in different sectors.

Results

Health sector staff (4.26 ± 0.59) demonstrated a significantly higher level of policy cognition regarding HIA than nonhealth sector staff (3.96 ± 0.63). Conversely, nonhealth sector staff (3.72 ± 0.73) exhibited significantly higher levels of policy evaluation than health sector staff (3.47 ± 0.88). Subject trust positively influenced the three dimensions of HIA policy identification for both groups. However, procedural justice only positively influenced the policy sentiment and evaluation of health sector staff, with no significant impact on nonhealth sector staff. Additionally, other factors, such as position, education, work experience and familiarity with HIA, impacted HIA policy identification across sectors.

Conclusions

This study confirms that subject trust can enhance policy identification and cooperative behaviour. On the basis of this, the health sector should strive to understand the policy objectives of other sectors to seize opportunities for action, thereby enabling nonhealth sectors to participate in the actions of the health sector.