Dataset Information

Effectiveness of greenhouse gas mitigation intervention for health-care systems: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To identify evidence-based interventions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in health-care systems in low- and middle-income countries and explore potential synergies from these interventions that aid climate change adaptation while mitigating emissions.

Methods

We systematically searched 11 electronic databases for articles published between 1990 and March 2023. We assessed risk of bias in each article and graded the quality of evidence across interventions in health-care operations, energy and supply chains.

Findings

After screening 25 570 unique records, we included 22 studies published between 2000 and 2022 from 11 countries across six World Health Organization regions. Identified articles reported on interventions spanning six different sources of emissions, namely energy, waste, heating and cooling, operations and logistics, building design and anaesthetic gases; all of which demonstrated potential for significant greenhouse gas emission reductions, cost savings and positive health impacts. The overall quality of evidence is low because of wide variation in greenhouse gas emissions measuring and reporting.

Conclusion

There are opportunities to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from health-care systems in low- and middle-income countries, but gaps in evidence were identified across sources of emissions, such as the supply chain, as well as a lack of consideration of interactions with adaptation goals. As efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas intensify, rigorous monitoring, evaluation and reporting of these efforts are needed. Such actions will contribute to a strong evidence base that can inform policy-makers across contexts.

SUBMITTER: Blom IM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10898283 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of greenhouse gas mitigation intervention for health-care systems: a systematic review.

Blom Iris Martine IM Eissa Mohamed M Mattijsen Juliette Claudine JC Sana Hamaiyal H Haines Andy A Whitmee Sarah S

Bulletin of the World Health Organization 20230131 3

<h4>Objective</h4>To identify evidence-based interventions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in health-care systems in low- and middle-income countries and explore potential synergies from these interventions that aid climate change adaptation while mitigating emissions.<h4>Methods</h4>We systematically searched 11 electronic databases for articles published between 1990 and March 2023. We assessed risk of bias in each article and graded the quality of evidence across interventions in health- ...[more]

PMID: 38420573

Similar Datasets

Project description:The UK Government has set an ambitious target of achieving a national "net-zero" greenhouse gas economy by 2050. Agriculture is arguably placed at the heart of achieving net zero, as it plays a unique role as both a producer of GHG emissions and a sector that has the capacity via land use to capture carbon (C) when managed appropriately, thus reducing the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. Agriculture's importance, particularly in a UK-specific perspective, which is also applicable to many other temperate climate nations globally, is that the majority of land use nationwide is allocated to farming. Here, we present a systematic review based on peer-reviewed literature and relevant "grey" reports to address the question "how can the agricultural sector in the UK reduce, or offset, its direct agricultural emissions at the farm level?" We considered the implications of mitigation measures in terms of food security and import reliance, energy, environmental degradation, and value for money. We identified 52 relevant studies covering major foods produced and consumed in the UK. Our findings indicate that many mitigation measures can indeed contribute to net zero through GHG emissions reduction, offsetting, and bioenergy production, pending their uptake by farmers. While the environmental impacts of mitigation measures were covered well within the reviewed literature, corresponding implications regarding energy, food security, and farmer attitudes towards adoption received scant attention. We also provide an open-access, informative, and comprehensive dataset for agri-environment stakeholders and policymakers to identify the most promising mitigation measures. This research is of critical value to researchers, land managers, and policymakers as an interim guideline resource while more quantitative evidence becomes available through the ongoing lab-, field-, and farm-scale trials which will improve the reliability of agricultural sustainability modelling in the future.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13593-023-00938-0.

Project description:BackgroundPolicy decisions regarding climate change mitigation are increasingly incorporating the beneficial and adverse health impacts of greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies. Studies of such co-benefits and co-harms involve modeling approaches requiring a range of analytic decisions that affect the model output.ObjectiveOur objective was to assess analytic decisions regarding model framework, structure, choice of parameters, and handling of uncertainty when modeling health co-benefits, and to make recommendations for improvements that could increase policy uptake.MethodsWe describe the assumptions and analytic decisions underlying models of mitigation co-benefits, examining their effects on modeling outputs, and consider tools for quantifying uncertainty.DiscussionThere is considerable variation in approaches to valuation metrics, discounting methods, uncertainty characterization and propagation, and assessment of low-probability/high-impact events. There is also variable inclusion of adverse impacts of mitigation policies, and limited extension of modeling domains to include implementation considerations. Going forward, co-benefits modeling efforts should be carried out in collaboration with policy makers; these efforts should include the full range of positive and negative impacts and critical uncertainties, as well as a range of discount rates, and should explicitly characterize uncertainty. We make recommendations to improve the rigor and consistency of modeling of health co-benefits.ConclusionModeling health co-benefits requires systematic consideration of the suitability of model assumptions, of what should be included and excluded from the model framework, and how uncertainty should be treated. Increased attention to these and other analytic decisions has the potential to increase the policy relevance and application of co-benefits modeling studies, potentially helping policy makers to maximize mitigation potential while simultaneously improving health.

Project description:BackgroundTechnology-based systems can facilitate remote decision-making to triage patients to the appropriate level of care. Despite technologic advances, the effects of implementation of these systems on patient and utilization outcomes are unclear. We evaluated the effects of remote triage systems on healthcare utilization, case resolution, and patient safety outcomes.MethodsEnglish-language searches of MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and CINAHL were performed from inception until July 2018. Randomized and nonrandomized comparative studies of remote triage services that reported healthcare utilization, case resolution, and patient safety outcomes were included. Two reviewers assessed study and intervention characteristics independently for study quality, strength of evidence, and risk of bias.ResultsThe literature search identified 5026 articles, of which eight met eligibility criteria. Five randomized, two controlled before-and-after, and one interrupted time series study assessed 3 categories of remote triage services: mode of delivery, triage professional type, and system organizational level. No study evaluated any other delivery mode other than telephone and in-person. Meta-analyses were unable to be performed because of study design and outcome heterogeneity; therefore, we narratively synthesized data. Overall, most studies did not demonstrate a decrease in primary care (PC) or emergency department (ED) utilization, with some studies showing a significant increase. Evidence suggested local, practice-based triage systems have greater case resolution and refer fewer patients to PC or ED services than regional/national systems. No study identified statistically significant differences in safety outcomes.ConclusionOur review found limited evidence that remote triage reduces the burden of PC or ED utilization. However, remote triage by telephone can produce a high rate of call resolution and appears to be safe. Further study of other remote triage modalities is needed to realize the promise of remote triage services in optimizing healthcare outcomes.Protocol registrationThis study was registered and followed a published protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019112262).

Project description:ObjectiveTo synthesise the available evidence on the effects of interventions designed to improve the delivery of healthcare that reduces the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of healthcare.DesignSystematic review and structured synthesis.Search sourcesCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Web of Science and Embase from inception to 3 May 2023.Selection criteriaRandomised, quasi-randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, interrupted time series and controlled or uncontrolled before-after studies that assessed interventions primarily designed to improve the delivery of healthcare that reduces the GHG emissions of healthcare initiated by clinicians or healthcare services within any setting.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was GHG emissions. Secondary outcomes were financial costs, effectiveness, harms, patient-relevant outcomes, engagement and acceptability.Data collection and analysisPaired authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using a modified checklist for observational studies and the certainty of the evidence using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Data could not be pooled because of clinical and methodological heterogeneity, so we synthesised results in a structured summary of intervention effects with vote counting based on direction of effect.Results21 observational studies were included. Interventions targeted delivery of anaesthesia (12 of 21), waste/recycling (5 of 21), unnecessary test requests (3 of 21) and energy (1 of 21). The primary intervention type was clinician education. Most (20 of 21) studies were judged at unclear or high risk of bias for at least one criterion. Most studies reported effect estimates favouring the intervention (GHG emissions 17 of 18, costs 13 of 15, effectiveness 18 of 20, harms 1 of 1 and staff acceptability 1 of 1 studies), but the evidence is very uncertain for all outcomes (downgraded predominantly for observational study design and risk of bias). No studies reported patient-relevant outcomes other than death or engagement with the intervention.ConclusionsInterventions designed to improve the delivery of healthcare that reduces GHG emissions may reduce GHG emissions and costs, reduce anaesthesia use, waste and unnecessary testing, be acceptable to staff and have little to no effect on energy use or unintended harms, but the evidence is very uncertain. Rigorous studies that measure GHG emissions using gold-standard life cycle assessment are needed as well as studies in more diverse areas of healthcare. It is also important that future interventions to reduce GHG emissions evaluate the effect on beneficial and harmful patient outcomes.Prospero registration numberCRD42022309428.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of greenhouse gas mitigation intervention for health-care systems: a systematic review.

Objective

Methods

Findings

Conclusion

Publications

Effectiveness of greenhouse gas mitigation intervention for health-care systems: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets