Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37698993›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

The ecological footprint of physicians: A survey of physicians in Canada, India, and USA.

Faramarz Jabbari-Zadeh, Arsha Karbassi, Aditya Khetan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Faramarz Jabbari-ZadehPost-Graduate Medicine, Internal Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, London, Ontario, Canada.
Arsha KarbassiDepartment of Medicine, Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Aditya KhetanDepartment of Medicine, Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3277-425X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Combating climate change may be the greatest public health opportunity of the 21st century. While physicians play an important role in addressing climate change, given their affluence in society, they may be an important source of greenhouse gas emissions themselves. We sought to examine the size and nature of the ecological footprint of physicians and medical students. We conducted an online survey from December 2021-May 2022 examining resource consumption, changes in consumption patterns over time, and beliefs about climate change. Participants were medical students, residents, and staff physicians in Canada, India, or USA. Only 20 out of 162 valid respondents had a low ecological footprint (12%), defined as meat intake ≤2 times per week, living in an apartment or condominium, and using public transport, bicycle, motorcycle or walking to work. 14 of these 20 participants were from India. 91% of participants were open to reducing their own ecological footprint, though only 40% had made changes in that regard. 49% participants who discussed climate change at work and at home had decreased their ecological footprint, compared to 29% of participants who rarely engaged in such conversations (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.24-4.63, P = 0.01). We conclude that physicians have a large ecological footprint, especially those from Canada and USA. A majority of physicians are interested in reducing their ecological footprint, and those who engage in conversations around climate change are more likely to have done so. Talking frequently about climate change, at work and at home, will likely increase climate change action amongst physicians.

Indexed as

PhysiciansCanadaClimate ChangeCommunicationHumansIndia

Identifiers

PMID37698993
PMCPMC10497187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.