Author:
Batcup Carys,Breth-Petersen Matilde,Dakin Thomas,Barratt Alexandra,McGain Forbes,Newell Ben R.,Pickles Kristen
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Clinical activity accounts for 70–80% of the carbon footprint of healthcare. A critical component of reducing emissions is shifting clinical behaviour towards reducing, avoiding, or replacing carbon-intensive healthcare. The objective of this systematic review was to find, map and assess behaviour change interventions that have been implemented in healthcare settings to encourage clinicians to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from their clinical activity.
Methods
Studies eligible for inclusion were those reporting on a behaviour change intervention to reduce carbon emissions via changes in healthcare workplace behaviour. Six databases were searched in November 2021 (updated February 2022). A pre-determined template was used to extract data from the studies, and risk of bias was assessed. The behaviour change techniques (BCTs) used in the interventions were coded using the BCT Taxonomy.
Results
Six full-text studies were included in this review, and 14 conference abstracts. All studies used a before-after intervention design. The majority were UK studies (n = 15), followed by US (n = 3) and Australia (n = 2). Of the full-text studies, four focused on reducing the emissions associated with anaesthesia, and two aimed at reducing unnecessary test ordering. Of the conference abstracts, 13 focused on anaesthetic gas usage, and one on respiratory inhalers. The most common BCTs used were social support, salience of consequences, restructuring the physical environment, prompts and cues, feedback on outcome of behaviour, and information about environmental consequences. All studies reported success of their interventions in reducing carbon emissions, prescribing, ordering, and financial costs; however, only two studies reported the magnitude and significance of their intervention’s success. All studies scored at least one item as unclear or at risk of bias.
Conclusion
Most interventions to date have targeted anaesthesia or pathology test ordering in hospital settings. Due to the diverse study outcomes and consequent inability to pool the results, this review is descriptive only, limiting our ability to conclude the effectiveness of interventions. Multiple BCTs were used in each study but these were not compared, evaluated, or used systematically. All studies lacked rigour in study design and measurement of outcomes.
Review registration
The study was registered on Prospero (ID number CRD42021272526) (Breth-Petersen et al., Prospero 2021: CRD42021272526).
Funder
National Health and Medical Research Council
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference68 articles.
1. World Health Organization. Climate change and health. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-health. Accessed 31 Aug 2022.
2. Pichler P-P, Jaccard IS, Weisz U, Weisz H. International comparison of health care carbon footprints. Environ Res Lett. 2019;14(6):064004.
3. Lenzen M, Malik A, Li M, Fry J, Weisz H, Pichler P-P, et al. The environmental footprint of health care: a global assessment. Lancet Planet Health. 2020;4(7):e271–9.
4. Health Care Without Harm in collaboration with ARUP. Health care’s climate footprint: how the health sector contributes to the global climate crisis and opportunities for action 2019. Available from: https://noharm-global.org/sites/default/files/documents-files/5961/HealthCaresClimateFootprint_090619.pdf. Accessed 31 Aug 2022.
5. Worldometers. CO2 emissions by country. Available from: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/. Accessed 31 Aug 2022.
Cited by
8 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献