The study finds doctors and patients interested in the environmental impact of health care decisions

Concerns about the environmental impact of health care decisions rarely enter into discussions between patients and physicians. However, evidence from a new study led by researchers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute shows that there is widespread interest in changing that.

In a series of focus groups conducted in different areas of the United States, doctors and patients expressed openness to considering environmental conditions when discussing treatment options. The findings, presented in a paper published in Natural Climate Changesuggests that educating physicians about the environmental costs of treatment—and how those costs can be reduced while still providing excellent care—may be the first step toward that goal.

“Studies have shown that the US health care industry is responsible for 8.5% of global greenhouse gases and about 25% of global health care output,” said Andrew Hantel, MD, faculty member of the Leukemia and Population Sciences divisions at Dana. -Farber Cancer Institute who led the study and Dana-Farber colleague Gregory Abel, MD, MPH. “The health effects of these gases are responsible for the same loss of life as pancreatic cancer or colon cancer each year.

“If health care emissions are contributing to climate change causing this dangerous situation, we wanted to examine how physicians view their responsibility to address this problem and how physicians perceive it is their responsibility to solve this problem.” “We also asked patients how willing they were to make changes in their care that would reduce emissions and reduce harm to others.”

The researchers conducted seven focus groups—three made up of doctors, four patients—involving a total of 46 people. Patients, in general, were interested in talking about these issues and learning about alternative treatments that are equally effective but do not harm the environment.

“Asthma or COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]for example, it can be partially controlled by using powder or aerosol inhalers,” Hantel says. they have many environmental benefits.”

Nearly two-thirds of focus group participants identified as members of racial and ethnic minority groups, who often experience the worst impacts of climate change even though they are less responsible for the consequences than other groups. Many of them were interested in making good environmental decisions, but they wanted to make sure that the main contributors to climate change were also held accountable, the researchers found. Some of the participants were concerned that doctors’ fathers could be a hindrance to discussions about the climate with patients.

Many doctors in focus groups mistakenly assumed that patients were not interested in discussing the environmental consequences of health choices, researchers found. Although the patients were interested, the doctors said that their medical school education did not prepare them to deal with the issue properly.

At the same time, physicians felt that their ability to work in a climate-conscious manner was limited by a health care culture oriented toward the use of natural resources.

Hantel notes:

Doctors and patients generally agreed that the immediate health of patients should be prioritized over environmental problems. However, in situations where there are mutual benefits, both groups were open to actions that reduce environmental impact.

“Our findings highlight the need to educate physicians and health professionals about changes they can make, as well as advocate within their institutions, that benefit patients but are also less toxic. less environmentally,” Hantel suggests. “The goal is not to transfer the burden of climate health care decisions to patients, but to discuss these issues with them and make sure that it is a regular part of the discussion with their doctors.”