ArticleSociology of health & illness2025
UK Public Focus Groups on Healthcare's Environmental Impacts: A Critical Analysis of Co-Benefits Approaches.
Article in Sociology of health & illness, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The urgency of addressing climate change has accelerated the need for healthcare to mitigate its associated environmental harms. Co-benefits approaches are being used in policymaking to frame mitigation actions because they promise to deliver better health outcomes alongside environment benefits. Despite this, little empirical data exists on public perceptions about the acceptability and usefulness of this approach. We conducted 12 focus groups with 82 members of the UK public asking the question: what were participants' values, beliefs and experiences about the environmental harms associated with healthcare and how should these issues be conceptualised and addressed? Co-benefits framings resonated with participants, who perceived this approach as useful for prioritising healthcare needs while valuing the environment. However, when participants tried to frame co-benefits as a solution, they struggled to reconcile complexities. Furthermore, their discussions revealed a certain subjectivity and context-specificity in co-benefits framing, drawn from their own experiences and expectations of care. We emphasise paying attention to such subjectivities when developing co-benefits policies. This could be achieved by the inclusion of public and patient voices in policymaking. Any underlying assumptions associated with co-benefits policies-including which subjectivities are used in the framing and how tensions are resolved-must be made transparent.
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.