Understanding Trends and Opinions on More Environmentally Friendly Healthcare: A Clinician Survey
Author(s)
Kinga Marczell, PhD1, Ruth Chapman, BA, MSc, PhD2, Michael J. Cohen, MSc, MBA, SEA3, Ágnes Benedict, MA, MSc4.
1PPD Evidera Health Economics & Market Access/Thermo Fisher Scientific, Budapest, Hungary, 2PPD Evidera Health Economics & Market Access/Thermo Fisher Scientific, London, United Kingdom, 3PPD a part of Thermo Fisher Scientific, Ft Lauderdale, FL, USA, 4PPD Evidera, Vienna, Austria.
1PPD Evidera Health Economics & Market Access/Thermo Fisher Scientific, Budapest, Hungary, 2PPD Evidera Health Economics & Market Access/Thermo Fisher Scientific, London, United Kingdom, 3PPD a part of Thermo Fisher Scientific, Ft Lauderdale, FL, USA, 4PPD Evidera, Vienna, Austria.
OBJECTIVES: To identify examples of and test attitudes towards and practices in considering sustainability in healthcare decisions. Aimed to understand how environmental sustainability has influenced clinical practices to date and expectations for its future impact.
METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to physicians in Thermo Fisher Scientific. Questions covered examples of changes seen, proposed or foreseen future changes, personal attitudes towards environmental sustainability, and perceived attitudes of peers. Multiple-choice and open-ended questions were included to understand underlying considerations and barriers to embracing changes. The sample is not representative of physicians in general.
RESULTS: Out of 67 surveyed, 29 responses were received from 12 different practice areas across the US, UK, Europe, and Africa, with 83% of respondents currently active as clinicians. Changes in clinical practices aimed at improving sustainability were noticed by 45% in the past 5 years. 14% actively sought information in the past year about the environmental impact of materials used or therapies prescribed; 62% confirmed openness and another 34% responded tentatively to considering such information in clinical decisions. Seeking and considering information professionally were positively correlated with a concern with these factors in personal decisions (consumption choices, recycling, travel). Perceived receptiveness of peers was reported to be somewhat lower than own.Examples of observed changes included inhalers anaesthesiology gases with reduced global warming potentials, decreased usage of printer paper and single-use items, and improvements in waste management. Foreseen changes included reduction in toxic materials in pharmaceutical production, fewer single-use plastics, shift towards virtual trials, and improved medication packaging. For meaningful improvement in environmental impact, 52%, 76%, and 45% of respondents were willing to accept a negligible worsening of costs, efficacy and safety outcomes, and clinician time, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians demonstrated a carefully positive attitude towards considering environmental aspects in healthcare decisions but identified concerns and barriers.
METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to physicians in Thermo Fisher Scientific. Questions covered examples of changes seen, proposed or foreseen future changes, personal attitudes towards environmental sustainability, and perceived attitudes of peers. Multiple-choice and open-ended questions were included to understand underlying considerations and barriers to embracing changes. The sample is not representative of physicians in general.
RESULTS: Out of 67 surveyed, 29 responses were received from 12 different practice areas across the US, UK, Europe, and Africa, with 83% of respondents currently active as clinicians. Changes in clinical practices aimed at improving sustainability were noticed by 45% in the past 5 years. 14% actively sought information in the past year about the environmental impact of materials used or therapies prescribed; 62% confirmed openness and another 34% responded tentatively to considering such information in clinical decisions. Seeking and considering information professionally were positively correlated with a concern with these factors in personal decisions (consumption choices, recycling, travel). Perceived receptiveness of peers was reported to be somewhat lower than own.Examples of observed changes included inhalers anaesthesiology gases with reduced global warming potentials, decreased usage of printer paper and single-use items, and improvements in waste management. Foreseen changes included reduction in toxic materials in pharmaceutical production, fewer single-use plastics, shift towards virtual trials, and improved medication packaging. For meaningful improvement in environmental impact, 52%, 76%, and 45% of respondents were willing to accept a negligible worsening of costs, efficacy and safety outcomes, and clinician time, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians demonstrated a carefully positive attitude towards considering environmental aspects in healthcare decisions but identified concerns and barriers.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
HSD119
Topic
Health Policy & Regulatory, Health Service Delivery & Process of Care, Organizational Practices
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas