{"title":"中国健康影响评估政策确定的影响因素探讨:卫生与非卫生部门的比较研究。","authors":"Yanyun Xu, Liyuan Song, Xiang Liu, Yingzi Liu, Siyu Zhou, Meng Zhang","doi":"10.1186/s12961-025-01312-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"23 1","pages":"76"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12153183/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring factors influencing health impact assessment policy identification in China: a comparative study of health and nonhealth sectors.\",\"authors\":\"Yanyun Xu, Liyuan Song, Xiang Liu, Yingzi Liu, Siyu Zhou, Meng Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12961-025-01312-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12870,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"76\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12153183/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01312-0\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01312-0","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Exploring factors influencing health impact assessment policy identification in China: a comparative study of health and nonhealth sectors.
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.
期刊介绍:
Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.