What are the Revealed and Stated Population Preferences for Environmental Sustainability in Healthcare? A Scoping Review.

IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Charlotte Desterbecq, Mark Harrison, Sandy Tubeuf
{"title":"What are the Revealed and Stated Population Preferences for Environmental Sustainability in Healthcare? A Scoping Review.","authors":"Charlotte Desterbecq, Mark Harrison, Sandy Tubeuf","doi":"10.1007/s40273-025-01479-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Collective changes in healthcare practices are required to ensure real environmental gains. As patient-centred care is increasingly considered to enhance the ability of health systems to meet the expectations of the population, it is crucial for policymakers and health professionals to account for the preferences of the wider public regarding environmentally friendly healthcare. This article synthesises and appraises evidence from empirical studies to understand how people value environmental concerns when making decisions within medical-related or pharmaceutical sectors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted electronic searches of the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase literature databases. Studies were eligible if they conducted a quantitative experiment to understand participants' preferences regarding sustainability and green initiatives in the medical sector or for pharmaceuticals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 1138 documents identified, 32 studies were deemed eligible. More than 60% were published since 2020. Different methods were used to elicit the revealed and/or stated preferences of participants. In most studies, respondents valued the environment positively and were willing to change their behaviour or practices to support sustainability. However, concerns such as disease severity or clinical effectiveness of medicines or medical interventions were often prioritised over environmental considerations. The wide heterogeneity in study participants emphasises the need to involve all stakeholders to achieve the transition to a greener and sustainable healthcare system.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The identified studies used various methods but were consistent in finding broad support for environmental considerations within the healthcare sector.</p>","PeriodicalId":19807,"journal":{"name":"PharmacoEconomics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PharmacoEconomics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-025-01479-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Collective changes in healthcare practices are required to ensure real environmental gains. As patient-centred care is increasingly considered to enhance the ability of health systems to meet the expectations of the population, it is crucial for policymakers and health professionals to account for the preferences of the wider public regarding environmentally friendly healthcare. This article synthesises and appraises evidence from empirical studies to understand how people value environmental concerns when making decisions within medical-related or pharmaceutical sectors.

Methods: We conducted electronic searches of the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase literature databases. Studies were eligible if they conducted a quantitative experiment to understand participants' preferences regarding sustainability and green initiatives in the medical sector or for pharmaceuticals.

Results: Of the 1138 documents identified, 32 studies were deemed eligible. More than 60% were published since 2020. Different methods were used to elicit the revealed and/or stated preferences of participants. In most studies, respondents valued the environment positively and were willing to change their behaviour or practices to support sustainability. However, concerns such as disease severity or clinical effectiveness of medicines or medical interventions were often prioritised over environmental considerations. The wide heterogeneity in study participants emphasises the need to involve all stakeholders to achieve the transition to a greener and sustainable healthcare system.

Conclusion: The identified studies used various methods but were consistent in finding broad support for environmental considerations within the healthcare sector.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PharmacoEconomics
PharmacoEconomics 医学-药学
CiteScore
8.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
85
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: PharmacoEconomics is the benchmark journal for peer-reviewed, authoritative and practical articles on the application of pharmacoeconomics and quality-of-life assessment to optimum drug therapy and health outcomes. An invaluable source of applied pharmacoeconomic original research and educational material for the healthcare decision maker. PharmacoEconomics is dedicated to the clear communication of complex pharmacoeconomic issues related to patient care and drug utilization. PharmacoEconomics offers a range of additional features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by a Key Points summary, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand the scientific content and overall implications of the article.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信