Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40549262›Full record

ArticleApplied health economics and health policy2025

Health Technology Assessment and Environmental Impact: A Scoping Review of State of Art and Future Perspective.

Ippazio Cosimo Antonazzo, Giorgia Gribaudo, Lisa Ye, Pietro Ferrara, Lorenzo Losa, Paolo Abrate, Fabio Iraldo, Lorenzo Giovanni Mantovani, Paolo Angelo Cortesi

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Applied health economics and health policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Economic Evaluation of Once-Weekly Insulin Icodec from Italian NHS Perspective.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2024
    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

9 authors.

Ippazio Cosimo AntonazzoResearch Centre on Public Health (CESP), University of Milan-Bicocca, Monza, Italy.
Giorgia GribaudoResearch Centre on Public Health (CESP), University of Milan-Bicocca, Monza, Italy. giorgia.gribaudo@studio.unibo.it.ORCID 0000-0002-5034-7446
Lisa YeResearch Centre on Public Health (CESP), University of Milan-Bicocca, Monza, Italy.
Pietro FerraraResearch Centre on Public Health (CESP), University of Milan-Bicocca, Monza, Italy.
Lorenzo LosaResearch Centre on Public Health (CESP), University of Milan-Bicocca, Monza, Italy.
Paolo AbrateStruttura Semplice Continuità Farmaceutica Ospedale-Territorio ASL TO4, Ivrea, Italy.
Fabio IraldoInstitute of Management, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa, Italy.
Lorenzo Giovanni MantovaniResearch Centre on Public Health (CESP), University of Milan-Bicocca, Monza, Italy.
Paolo Angelo CortesiResearch Centre on Public Health (CESP), University of Milan-Bicocca, Monza, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionManufacture, distribution, use, excretion, and disposal of health technologies all have environmental impacts (EIs). In the health technology assessment (HTA) definition, EI is recognized as a domain that should be assessed. However, EIs in HTA methods are lacking. The aim of this scoping review was to identify current advances and limitations in incorporating EI in HTA evaluation.

methodsWe searched two databases, PubMed and Embase (01/01/2019-20/10/2023, updated on 15/05/2025), using the following keywords: "HTA" and "environmental impact." Articles published in English were included. Additionally, no filters by study design or type of evaluated technology were used.

resultsIn total, 264 studies were screened after duplicates had been removed. Among them, 15 articles were included. Identified publications highlighted the necessity of robust and clear methods of EI assessment and its inclusion in the HTA process. Several authors have outlined the importance of assessing the EI of health technology throughout its life cycle, including raw materials, manufacturing, use, and disposal. However, the EI assessment in HTA presents significant challenges, such as determining a clear domain of EI, the perspective, and the time horizon for the assessment. EI assessment challenges also include the lack of disaggregated data on pollutant emissions and natural resource consumption, as well as recommendations on the use of the EI data by decision makers and HTA agencies. In the literature, different methods and approaches have been proposed to incorporate EI in HTA; some rely on already establish assessment methods ("enriched" cost-utility analysis, adjusted willingness to pay, and multicriteria decision analysis) and others proposed more specific approaches, such as "information conduit," "parallel evaluation," "integrated evaluation," and "environment-focused evaluation."

conclusionHTA framework needs adjustments to incorporate environmental information, including environmental healthcare technology impact. Clear and robust methods on EI assessment and inclusion in the HTA process should be provided by HTA agencies and international societies. Further, manufacturers should improve the data generation on the EI of their products, with new studies able to generate individual-level data on environmental technology impact.

Indexed as

EnvironmentTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalHumans

Identifiers

PMID40549262
PMCPMC12535925

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.