Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40522685›Full record

ArticleSociology of health & illness2025

UK Public Focus Groups on Healthcare's Environmental Impacts: A Critical Analysis of Co-Benefits Approaches.

Gabrielle Samuel, Miranda MacFarlane, Sarah Briggs

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Gabrielle SamuelDepartment of Global Health and Social Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8111-2730
Miranda MacFarlaneDepartment of Global Health and Social Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0009-0007-7352-5878
Sarah BriggsNuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1844-0755

Funding

NIHR CL-2022-13-001St Anne's College, University of Oxford ECR Research and Travel GrantWellcome 222180/Z/20/ZWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

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

Climate ChangeDelivery of Health CareEnvironmentPublic OpinionAdultAgedFemaleFocus GroupsHealth PolicyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPolicy MakingUnited Kingdomco‐benefitenvironmentenvironmental harmsenvironmental impactsfocus groupshealthhealthcarenet zeroqualitative researchUK

Identifiers

PMID40522685
PMCPMC12169391

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.