ArticlePharmacoEconomics2025
What are the Revealed and Stated Population Preferences for Environmental Sustainability in Healthcare? A Scoping Review.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Patients weigh in: The value of healthcare environmental stewardship to patient experience.The journal of climate change and healthArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveCollective 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.
methodsWe 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.
resultsOf 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.
conclusionThe identified studies used various methods but were consistent in finding broad support for environmental considerations within the healthcare sector.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40106196What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.