UK Public Focus Groups on Healthcare's Environmental Impacts: A Critical Analysis of Co-Benefits Approaches.

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Gabrielle Samuel, Miranda MacFarlane, Sarah Briggs
{"title":"UK Public Focus Groups on Healthcare's Environmental Impacts: A Critical Analysis of Co-Benefits Approaches.","authors":"Gabrielle Samuel, Miranda MacFarlane, Sarah Briggs","doi":"10.1111/1467-9566.70058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The urgency of addressing climate change has accelerated the need for healthcare to mitigate its associated environmental harms. Co-benefits approaches are being used in policymaking to frame mitigation actions because they promise to deliver better health outcomes alongside environment benefits. Despite this, little empirical data exists on public perceptions about the acceptability and usefulness of this approach. We conducted 12 focus groups with 82 members of the UK public asking the question: what were participants' values, beliefs and experiences about the environmental harms associated with healthcare and how should these issues be conceptualised and addressed? Co-benefits framings resonated with participants, who perceived this approach as useful for prioritising healthcare needs while valuing the environment. However, when participants tried to frame co-benefits as a solution, they struggled to reconcile complexities. Furthermore, their discussions revealed a certain subjectivity and context-specificity in co-benefits framing, drawn from their own experiences and expectations of care. We emphasise paying attention to such subjectivities when developing co-benefits policies. This could be achieved by the inclusion of public and patient voices in policymaking. Any underlying assumptions associated with co-benefits policies-including which subjectivities are used in the framing and how tensions are resolved-must be made transparent.</p>","PeriodicalId":21685,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of health & illness","volume":"47 5","pages":"e70058"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12169391/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociology of health & illness","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.70058","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The urgency of addressing climate change has accelerated the need for healthcare to mitigate its associated environmental harms. Co-benefits approaches are being used in policymaking to frame mitigation actions because they promise to deliver better health outcomes alongside environment benefits. Despite this, little empirical data exists on public perceptions about the acceptability and usefulness of this approach. We conducted 12 focus groups with 82 members of the UK public asking the question: what were participants' values, beliefs and experiences about the environmental harms associated with healthcare and how should these issues be conceptualised and addressed? Co-benefits framings resonated with participants, who perceived this approach as useful for prioritising healthcare needs while valuing the environment. However, when participants tried to frame co-benefits as a solution, they struggled to reconcile complexities. Furthermore, their discussions revealed a certain subjectivity and context-specificity in co-benefits framing, drawn from their own experiences and expectations of care. We emphasise paying attention to such subjectivities when developing co-benefits policies. This could be achieved by the inclusion of public and patient voices in policymaking. Any underlying assumptions associated with co-benefits policies-including which subjectivities are used in the framing and how tensions are resolved-must be made transparent.

英国公共焦点小组对医疗保健的环境影响:共同利益方法的关键分析。
应对气候变化的紧迫性加快了对医疗保健的需求,以减轻其相关的环境危害。共同惠益方法正在用于政策制定,以确定缓解行动的框架,因为它们承诺在环境惠益的同时提供更好的健康结果。尽管如此,关于公众对这种方法的可接受性和有用性的看法的经验数据很少。我们对82名英国公众进行了12个焦点小组调查,询问了以下问题:参与者对与医疗保健相关的环境危害的价值观、信念和经历是什么?这些问题应该如何概念化和解决?共同利益框架与参与者产生了共鸣,他们认为这种方法有助于优先考虑医疗保健需求,同时重视环境。然而,当参与者试图将共同利益作为一种解决方案时,他们很难调和复杂性。此外,他们的讨论揭示了在共同利益框架中一定的主观性和情境特异性,这些框架来自他们自己的经验和护理期望。我们强调在制定共同利益政策时要注意这种主观性。这可以通过在政策制定中纳入公众和患者的声音来实现。任何与共同利益政策相关的潜在假设——包括在框架中使用了哪些主观性,以及如何解决紧张关系——都必须透明。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
6.90%
发文量
156
期刊介绍: Sociology of Health & Illness is an international journal which publishes sociological articles on all aspects of health, illness, medicine and health care. We welcome empirical and theoretical contributions in this field.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信