评估远程医疗的碳足迹:系统回顾。

IF 2.4 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health Services Insights Pub Date : 2024-08-11 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/11786329241271562
Casper van der Zee, Jennifer Chang-Wolf, Marc A Koopmanschap, Redmer van Leeuwen, Robert Pl Wisse
{"title":"评估远程医疗的碳足迹:系统回顾。","authors":"Casper van der Zee, Jennifer Chang-Wolf, Marc A Koopmanschap, Redmer van Leeuwen, Robert Pl Wisse","doi":"10.1177/11786329241271562","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Healthcare is responsible for 4% to 10% of carbon emissions worldwide, of which 22% is related to transport. Telemedicine emerged as a potential solution to reduce the footprint, for example, by reducing travel. However, a need to understand which variables to include in carbon footprint estimations in telemedicine limits our understanding of the beneficial impact telemedicine might have on our environment. This paper aims to systematically assess the reported carbon footprint and include variables assessed by the literature, comparing telemedicine with usual care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines in PubMed, Medline, Embase and Scopus. A quality assessment was performed using a transparency checklist for carbon footprint calculators. Carbon emissions were evaluated based on four categories, including patient travel, and streamlined life cycle assessment (LCA) for assessing included variables relevant to telemedicine.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 33 articles from 1117 records for analysis. The average transparency score was 38% (range 18%-68%). The median roundtrip travel distance for each patient was 131 km (interquartile range [IQR]: 60.8-351), or 25.6 kgCO<sub>2</sub> (IQR: 10.6-105.6) emissions. There is high variance among included variables. Saved emissions are structurally underestimated by not including external factors such as a streamlined LCA.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Telemedicine aids in reducing emissions, with travel distance being the most significant contributor. Additionally, we recommend accounting for the LCA since it highlights important nuances. This review furthers the debate on assessing carbon footprint savings due to telemedicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":12876,"journal":{"name":"Health Services Insights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11320403/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the Carbon Footprint of Telemedicine: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Casper van der Zee, Jennifer Chang-Wolf, Marc A Koopmanschap, Redmer van Leeuwen, Robert Pl Wisse\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/11786329241271562\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Healthcare is responsible for 4% to 10% of carbon emissions worldwide, of which 22% is related to transport. Telemedicine emerged as a potential solution to reduce the footprint, for example, by reducing travel. However, a need to understand which variables to include in carbon footprint estimations in telemedicine limits our understanding of the beneficial impact telemedicine might have on our environment. This paper aims to systematically assess the reported carbon footprint and include variables assessed by the literature, comparing telemedicine with usual care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines in PubMed, Medline, Embase and Scopus. A quality assessment was performed using a transparency checklist for carbon footprint calculators. Carbon emissions were evaluated based on four categories, including patient travel, and streamlined life cycle assessment (LCA) for assessing included variables relevant to telemedicine.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 33 articles from 1117 records for analysis. The average transparency score was 38% (range 18%-68%). The median roundtrip travel distance for each patient was 131 km (interquartile range [IQR]: 60.8-351), or 25.6 kgCO<sub>2</sub> (IQR: 10.6-105.6) emissions. There is high variance among included variables. Saved emissions are structurally underestimated by not including external factors such as a streamlined LCA.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Telemedicine aids in reducing emissions, with travel distance being the most significant contributor. Additionally, we recommend accounting for the LCA since it highlights important nuances. This review furthers the debate on assessing carbon footprint savings due to telemedicine.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12876,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Services Insights\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11320403/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Services Insights\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/11786329241271562\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services Insights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11786329241271562","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:医疗保健占全球碳排放量的 4%至 10%,其中 22%与交通有关。远程医疗是减少碳足迹的潜在解决方案,例如通过减少旅行。然而,需要了解哪些变量应纳入远程医疗碳足迹估算,这限制了我们对远程医疗可能对环境产生的有益影响的理解。本文旨在系统地评估所报告的碳足迹,并纳入文献所评估的变量,对远程医疗与常规护理进行比较:方法:在 PubMed、Medline、Embase 和 Scopus 上进行的系统性综述遵循了 PRISMA 指南。采用碳足迹计算器透明度检查表进行了质量评估。碳排放量根据四个类别进行评估,包括患者旅行和简化生命周期评估(LCA),以评估与远程医疗相关的变量:我们从 1117 条记录中选取了 33 篇文章进行分析。平均透明度得分为 38%(范围为 18%-68%)。每位患者的往返距离中位数为 131 千米(四分位数间距 [IQR]:60.8-351),或 25.6 千克 CO2(四分位数间距 [IQR]:10.6-105.6)排放量。各变量之间存在很大差异。由于不包括简化生命周期评估等外部因素,节省的排放量被结构性低估:结论:远程医疗有助于减少排放,而旅行距离是最重要的因素。此外,我们建议考虑生命周期评估,因为它能突出重要的细微差别。这篇综述进一步推动了关于评估远程医疗所带来的碳足迹减少的讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Assessing the Carbon Footprint of Telemedicine: A Systematic Review.

Background: Healthcare is responsible for 4% to 10% of carbon emissions worldwide, of which 22% is related to transport. Telemedicine emerged as a potential solution to reduce the footprint, for example, by reducing travel. However, a need to understand which variables to include in carbon footprint estimations in telemedicine limits our understanding of the beneficial impact telemedicine might have on our environment. This paper aims to systematically assess the reported carbon footprint and include variables assessed by the literature, comparing telemedicine with usual care.

Methods: The systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines in PubMed, Medline, Embase and Scopus. A quality assessment was performed using a transparency checklist for carbon footprint calculators. Carbon emissions were evaluated based on four categories, including patient travel, and streamlined life cycle assessment (LCA) for assessing included variables relevant to telemedicine.

Results: We included 33 articles from 1117 records for analysis. The average transparency score was 38% (range 18%-68%). The median roundtrip travel distance for each patient was 131 km (interquartile range [IQR]: 60.8-351), or 25.6 kgCO2 (IQR: 10.6-105.6) emissions. There is high variance among included variables. Saved emissions are structurally underestimated by not including external factors such as a streamlined LCA.

Conclusions: Telemedicine aids in reducing emissions, with travel distance being the most significant contributor. Additionally, we recommend accounting for the LCA since it highlights important nuances. This review furthers the debate on assessing carbon footprint savings due to telemedicine.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Services Insights
Health Services Insights HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
47
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Corrigendum to "Healthcare Professionals' Resilience during the COVID-19 and Organizational Factors That Improve Individual Resilience: A Mixed-Method Study". A Fuzzy Bi-objective Mathematical Model for Perishable Medical Goods Supply Chain Network Considering Crisis Situations: An Empirical Study. Procedure Prioritization During a Nationwide Ban on Non-Urgent Healthcare: A Quasi-Experimental Retrospective Study of Hospital Data in Switzerland. Navigating Rehabilitation Transitions at Street Level: A Qualitative Analysis of Municipal Service Allocation to Individuals With Complex Needs. Patterns of Antidepressant and Anxiolytic Use and Spending in 14 European Countries (2012-2021): A Comprehensive Time Series Analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1