ArticleBMJ open2019
Hospital climate actions and assessment tools: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Digital health for climate change mitigation and response: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Article
- Role of Health Professionals Regarding the Impact of Climate Change on Health-An Exploratory Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Evaluating the Waste Prevention Potential of a Multi- versus Single-Use Surgical Stapler.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHealth and climate change are inexorably linked through the exacerbation of health risks and the contribution of the health sector to greenhouse gas emissions. Climate action in healthcare settings is critical to reduce risks and impacts of climate change through the smarter use of energy, minimising waste and enhancing disaster preparedness. Globally, hospital climate action is growing; however, the potential for further progress and impacts remains. The literature on this topic lacks synthesis, and this poses challenges for hospital leadership in tracking the impact of climate action. This scoping review will summarise the current knowledge about hospital climate action and existing tools to measure progress in this area. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will be conducted applying the six-stage protocol proposed by Arksey and O'Malley. The study includes literature of how hospitals have addressed climate change (mitigation and adaptation) since the Kyoto Protocol was signed in 1997. All identified studies indexed in Medline, Scopus, Embase and CINAHL will be examined. The search strategy will also include Google Scholar to capture relevant grey literature. Quantitative and thematic analysis will be used to evaluate and categorise the study results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review is part of the climate-smart healthcare initiative which will provide a valuable synthesis to aid understanding of hospitals' climate actions, and tools used to measure its implementation. As such it will contribute to mobilising and accelerating the implementation of climate action in hospitals. The findings will be disseminated with all members of the International Health Promoting Hospital and Health Services (HPH) and the Global Green and Healthy Hospital network. Dissemination will occur through peer-reviewed publications; and with the HPH and GGHH members through its annual conference and newsletter.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.