ArticleBMC primary care2025
The role of environmental impact in healthcare providers' choices of inhalers for treatment of asthma and COPD: a discrete choice experiment.
Article in BMC primary care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Carbon Emissions and Treatment Efficiency in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: The Impact of Inhaled Bronchodilators and Corticosteroids.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPressurised metered-dose inhalers (pMDIs), often prescribed for the treatment of COPD and asthma have a high global warming potential (GWP) compared to dry powder inhalers (DPIs) and soft-mist inhalers. Despite calls to switch from high to DPIs or soft-mist inhalers, prescriptions of pMDIs have increased in recent years. Understanding healthcare providers' preferences can help develop strategies to promote prescribing low GWP inhalers. This study aimed to determine healthcare providers' preferences when prescribing inhalers for asthma and COPD, including its GWP (i.e. environmental impact).
methodsA survey containing a discrete choice experiment was conducted. Primary care providers were repetitively asked to choose between scenarios of inhalers that differed in five attributes: multidose or unidose system (i.e. ease of use), reduction in number of exacerbations, side effects, out of pocket costs and GWP. A multinomial logit model was used to determine the relative importance of the attributes.
resultsA total of 76 healthcare providers (general practitioners (GPs), nurse specialists and nurse practitioners) completed the survey. On average, the attribute 'reduction in number of exacerbations' was most important in their choice for inhalers, followed by, 'side effects', 'GWP', 'out of pocket costs', and 'multidose or unidose system'. Healthcare providers were willing to accept a high GWP inhaler instead of a low GWP inhaler when the inhaler reduced the number of exacerbations and were willing to opt for low GWP inhaler with higher out of pocket costs instead of a high GWP inhaler with lower out of pocket costs.
conclusionsHealthcare providers valued clinical factors (i.e. reduction in number of exacerbations and low side effects) as most important when choosing inhalers for their patients with COPD or asthma, however GWP was also an important driver of choice. Understanding these preferences can support strategies to support sustainable inhalers for COPD and asthma, contributing to climate change mitigation. For example by enhancing the provision of information regarding inhaler GWP, while ensuring that clinical effectiveness remains the primary focus.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.