Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35701064›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Turning green: the impact of changing to more eco-friendly respiratory healthcare - a carbon and cost analysis of Dutch prescription data.

Pieter Ten Have, Peter van Hal, Iris Wichers, Johan Kooistra, Paul Hagedoorn, Evelyn A Brakema, Niels Chavannes, Pauline de Heer, Hans C Ossebaard

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. [Inhaled Respiratory Therapy and Global Warming].Farmaceuticos comunitarios · 2025
    Observational
  15. Sustainability as an Intrinsic Moral Concern for Solidaristic Health Care.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Environmental impact of inhaler devices on respiratory care: a narrative review.Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia : publicacao oficial da Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisilogia · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Pieter Ten HaveNational Health Care Institute, Diemen, The Netherlands.
Peter van HalNational Health Care Institute, Diemen, The Netherlands.
Iris WichersDutch College of General Practitioners, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Johan KooistraBenu Pharmacies, Maarssen, The Netherlands.
Paul HagedoornPharmaceutical Technology and Biopharmacy, University of Groningen, Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Evelyn A BrakemaDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Niels ChavannesDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Pauline de HeerNational Health Care Institute, Diemen, The Netherlands.
Hans C OssebaardNational Health Care Institute, Diemen, The Netherlands hossebaard@zinl.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-9537-9655
Zorginstituut Nederland · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NLDutch College of General Practitioners · NLUniversity of Groningen · NLZiekenhuis Bethesda · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDry powder inhalers (DPIs) and soft mist inhalers have a substantially lower global warming potential than pressurised metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs). To help mitigate climate change, we assessed the potential emission reduction in CO

designWe performed a descriptive analysis of prescription data from two national databases of two independent governmental bodies. First, we calculated the number of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma that were using inhalation medication (2020). Second, we calculated the number and total of daily defined doses of pMDIs and NPIs including DPIs and soft mist inhalers, as well as the number of dispensed spacers per patient (2020). Third, we estimated the potential emission reduction in CO

settingDutch respiratory healthcare. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The carbon footprint of current inhalation medication and the environmental and financial impact of replacing pMDIs with NPIs.

resultsIn 2020, 1.4 million patients used inhalers for COPD or asthma treatment. A total of 364 million defined daily doses from inhalers were dispensed of which 49.6% were dispensed through pMDIs. We estimated that this could be reduced by 70% which would lead to an annual reduction in greenhouse gas emission of 63 million kg.CO2 equivalents saving at best EUR 49.1 million per year.

conclusionsIn the Netherlands, substitution of pMDIs to NPIs for eligible patients is theoretically safe and in accordance with medical guidelines, while reducing greenhouse gas emission by 63 million kg.CO2 equivalents on average and saving at best EUR 49.1 million per year. This study confirms the potential climate and economic benefit of delivering a more eco-friendly respiratory care.

Indexed as

AsthmaGreenhouse GasesPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveAdministration, InhalationBronchodilator AgentsCarbonCarbon DioxideCosts and Cost AnalysisDelivery of Health CareDry Powder InhalersHumansNebulizers and VaporizersPrescriptionsBronchodilator AgentsCarbonCarbon DioxideGreenhouse GasesAsthmaChange managementChronic airways diseaseHealth policyProtocols & guidelines

Identifiers

PMID35701064
PMCPMC9198801
OpenAlexW4282832711

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.