ArticleThe Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy2025
Exploring the Views of British Columbians Regarding the Environmental Impact of Medication Use.
Article in The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pharmaceuticals affect planetary health through environmental contamination from human excretions, improper drug disposal, and greenhouse gas emissions, derived from manufacturing as well as from use. Research suggests that patients will choose environmentally friendly options for minor ailments, but not severe conditions. To date, no Canadian research has explored patients' views on this topic. Objectives: To characterize the views of British Columbians regarding medication-related environmental sustainability and to determine how these views relate to medication decisions. Methods: A web-based survey was distributed across British Columbia from October 30, 2023, to February 29, 2024. Residents of British Columbia at least 18 years of age who could complete an online survey in English were eligible to participate. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were used. Results: A total of 255 responses were received. When presented with a scenario related to stroke, more than half of respondents (51%) preferred the medication with higher efficacy and greater environmental harm; in contrast, for scenarios involving the common cold and asthma, more than half chose the medication with lower efficacy and lower environmental harm (54% and 59%, respectively). When cost was introduced, only 54% stated they would choose the more environmentally friendly medication if it was more expensive, whereas 97% would do so if it was less expensive. Themes from open-ended questions focused on cost, manufacturer considerations, and education. Conclusions: Respondents were willing to choose the environmentally friendly medication for less serious conditions, but not for conditions perceived as life-threatening and/or debilitating. Cost may be a barrier to accessing environmentally friendly options. Public education opportunities may help to inform more sustainable choices. Additionally, there may be value in manufacturer regulations or policies to ensure that the environmental impact of medications is considered.
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.