Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40935421›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Study Protocol for a Delphi Process to Develop a Climate Impact Extension to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard (CHEERS) 2022-the CHEERS ClimatE Checklist.

Jule Oldenburg, Mattis Keil, Laura Maaß, Oliver Lange, Wolf Rogowski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

5 authors.

Jule OldenburgDepartment of Healthcare Management, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany j.oldenburg@uni-bremen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-5801-3821
Mattis KeilDepartment of Healthcare Management, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0180-2358
Laura MaaßSOCIUM Research Centre on Inequality and Social Policy, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7354-8120
Oliver LangeDepartment of Healthcare Management, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9780-7334
Wolf RogowskiDepartment of Healthcare Management, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1625-4171

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe healthcare sector has significant environmental impacts, particularly through greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing its climate footprint is therefore essential for achieving political goals such as net-zero and climate-friendly healthcare. While health economic evaluation (HEE) methods compare the costs and consequences of two or more interventions, these analyses rarely consider climate impacts. Some studies have begun to determine climate impacts parallel to or integrated into HEEs. Life cycle assessment (LCA) could be used to integrate climate impacts by considering these results as effects or monetised climate footprints. However, a reporting standard is needed for using these climate-extended economic evaluations in evidence-based decision-making. This protocol describes using an online Delphi process to incorporate climate impacts into the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard (CHEERS), called CHEERS Climate Extension (CHEERS ClimatE). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The development of CHEERS ClimatE will proceed through five key stages. First, the preliminary steering group develops in consultation with an advisory board a proposal for the CHEERS ClimatE reporting standard based on a transparency checklist that combines three standards for carbon footprint calculations into the CHEERS framework. The mapping was complemented by reviewing studies that incorporate climate impacts in HEE. Second, for the Delphi process, international experts in HEE and LCA with at least one year of academic experience will be invited to participate in an online pre-survey. We aim to recruit at least 40 participants. Expecting various drop-outs, we aim to reach a consensus with at least 20 participants per Delphi round. Third, an expected three-round Delphi process will be conducted to validate and refine the proposed elements. Participants will rate each item using a 9-point Likert scale and will have the opportunity to comment on each item and propose new items. Consensus is defined with the target of a 70% agreement. Unless consensus is reached, a moderated video conference may be held as a fourth round. Fourth, following other CHEERS extensions, the consented checklist will be piloted using thematically relevant case studies. While substantial changes are not anticipated, minor revisions to individual items may be considered and ratified by the steering group and advisory board. The fifth stage is the publication of the final checklist. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the ethics committee of the University of Bremen (2024-25). The findings of the Delphi study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences.

Indexed as

ChecklistClimate ChangeDelphi TechniqueCarbon FootprintCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansResearch DesignClimate ChangeDecision MakingDelphi TechniqueHealth economicsHEALTH ECONOMICSHealth policy

Identifiers

PMID40935421
PMCPMC12519330

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.