Exploring the views of planners and public health practitioners on integrating health evidence into spatial planning in England: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: This study explored barriers and facilitators to integrating health evidence into spatial planning at local authority levels and examined the awareness and use of the Public Health England 'Spatial Planning for Health' resource. METHODS: A sequential exploratory mixed-methods design utilized in-depth semi-structured interviews followed by an online survey of public health, planning and other built environment professionals in England. RESULTS: Views from 19 individuals and 162 survey responses revealed high awareness and use of the Spatial Planning for Health resource, although public health professionals reported greater awareness and use than other professionals. Key barriers to evidence implementation included differences in interpretation and the use of 'evidence' between public health and planning professionals, lack of practical evidence to apply locally and lack of resource and staff capacity in local authorities. Key facilitators included integrating health into the design of local plans, articulating wider benefits to multiple stakeholders and simplifying presenting evidence (regarding language and accessibility). CONCLUSION: The Spatial Planning for Health resource is a useful resource at local authority level. Further work is needed to maximize its use by built environment professionals. Public health teams need support, capacity and skills to ensure that local health and well-being priorities are integrated into local planning documents and decisions.

Professional workforce training needs for Health Impact Assessment in spatial planning: A cross sectional survey.

Objectives: Heath Impact Assessment (HIA) in spatial planning can influence wider determinants and prevent ill-health, promote good health and reduce inequalities. They remain underutilised in England, partly due to inadequate workforce training. This study sought to identify the training needs of Public Health Professionals, Planners and Impact Assessment Practitioners in England in 2021. Study design: Cross-sectional survey. Methods: A survey was undertaken of Public Health Professionals, Planners and Impact Assessment Practitioners to ascertain their training needs. Descriptive statistics, frequency tables and charts summarised feedback. Results: 76% (68) of 90 total respondents, never received any training in HIAs. Quantifying impact of planning on health, especially in monetary terms and monitoring success of HIA recommendations, were common challenges for all professions. Musculoskeletal health and infectious disease were among specific health impacts where professionals welcomed further training. Public Health professionals requested support to identify high-impact interventions and work more collaboratively with Planners and a need to justify budgets for undertaking HIAs. Planners expressed training needs around justifying requirement for HIAs, data collection; and identifying local public health priorities. Impact Assessment Practitioners expressed uncertainty about policy triggers needed to undertake HIAs citing that the scale of HIAs must be proportional to project scope, the challenge of identifying planning interventions and a need to apply consistent methodological approaches in HIAs. Conclusion: There is need for baseline training to upskill all professionals, alongside tailored-training on key topic areas to address profession- and locality-specific needs to ensure spatial planning decisions better influence wider determinants and address local health priorities.