Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38074337›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Integrating environmental considerations in digital health technology assessment and procurement: Stakeholders' perspectives.

Hassane Alami, Lysanne Rivard, Pascale Lehoux, Mohamed Ali Ag Ahmed, Jean-Paul Fortin, Richard Fleet

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
13.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Femtech in context: A critical conceptual (re)view.Health (London, England : 1997) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Bridging the gap: The future of biosimilars regulations.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hassane AlamiDepartment of Health Management, Evaluation and Policy, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5461-7693
Lysanne RivardCenter for Public Health Research of the University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Pascale LehouxDepartment of Health Management, Evaluation and Policy, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Mohamed Ali Ag AhmedSherpa University Institute, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Jean-Paul FortinDepartment of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Richard FleetDepartment of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Laval University, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada.
Université de Montréal · CAUniversité Laval · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Digital health technologies (DHTs) are promoted as means to reduce the environmental impact of healthcare systems. However, a growing literature is shedding light on the highly polluting nature of the digital industry and how it exacerbates health inequalities. Thus, the environmental footprint of DHTs should be considered when assessing their overall value to healthcare systems. The objectives of this article are to: (1) explore stakeholders' perspectives on integrating the environmental impacts of DHTs in assessment and procurement practices; (2) identify the factors enabling or constraining the operationalisation of such a change; and (3) encourage a constructive dialogue on how environmental issues fit within healthcare systems' push for more DHTs. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 29 stakeholders involved in DHTs in a large Canadian academic healthcare centre. Data were collected and analysed through a mixed deductive-inductive process using a framework derived from diffusion of innovations theories. Results: The integration of the environmental impact of DHTs in assessment and procurement is contingent upon key micro-meso-macrosystemic factors that either enable or constrain changes in practices and processes. Innovation (micro) factors include stakeholders' recognition of the environmental issue and the extent to which it is feasible for them to address the environmental impact of DHTs. Organisational (meso) factors include the organisation's culture, leadership, policies, and practices, as well as the expertise and professional skillsets available. Finally, external (macro) factors include political and regulatory (e.g., national strategy, laws, standards, norms), economic (e.g., business models, public procurement), and professional and scientific factors (e.g., evidence, methodologies, clinical guidelines). Conclusion: Considering the environmental impact of DHTs depends on micro-meso-macrosystemic factors involving a variety of stakeholders and levels of governance, sometimes with divergent or even antagonistic objectives and expectations. It highlights the importance of better understanding the complexity inherent in the environmental shift in healthcare.

Indexed as

climate changeDigital healthenvironmenthealthcare systemhealth technology assessmentpublic procurementsustainability

Identifiers

PMID38074337
PMCPMC10704940
OpenAlexW4389444861

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.