Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40681196›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2025

Readiness to reduce primary care-associated carbon emissions in England: a cross-sectional survey of clinical and non-clinical staff views.

Olivia Geddes, Helen Twohig, Frederik Dahlmann, Abigail Eccles, Florence Karaba, Ana Raquel Nunes, Rachel Spencer, Jeremy Dale

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Mobilising Knowledge for General Practice Decarbonisation: Maximising Impact Through a Multi-Stakeholder Workshop.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    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

8 authors.

Olivia GeddesDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK olivia.geddes@warwick.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-2467-6351
Helen TwohigSchool of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK.
Frederik DahlmannStrategy & International Business Group, Warwick Business School, Coventry, UK.
Abigail EcclesNuffield Department of Primary Care, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
Florence KarabaDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-0549-729X
Ana Raquel NunesDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3709-3760
Rachel SpencerDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2578-6954
Jeremy DaleDivision of Health Sciences, Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9256-3553

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo describe current levels of interest and action around decarbonisation in general practice settings, and awareness and use of currently available materials designed to support general practice teams undertake decarbonisation activity.

designCross-sectional, mixed methods, online survey.

setting473 general practices in three Integrated Care Board regions in England.

participantsMultiprofessional general practice staff.

resultsThere were 328 responses from 163 (34.5%) practices. Most respondents were general practitioner (GP) partners (98; 29.9%), other clinical staff (93; 28.3%) or managerial staff (76; 23.2%). 229 (69.8%) respondents felt that acting to reduce carbon emissions from primary care is a legitimate part of general practice activity. However, only 44 (13.4%) felt that there is sufficient training and resources to support such activity, and only 59 (18.0%) agreed that there was sufficient leadership from higher levels within the health service to enable this. 58 (35.6%) practices had a lead for sustainability, generally managerial staff (22; 37.9%) or GP partners (17; 29.3%). Compared to other practices, those with a decarbonisation lead reported increased levels of decarbonisation actions currently being undertaken (mean = 5.2 vs 3.1; t(161) = 7.7, p<0.001); use of resource materials that support decarbonisation (79.3% vs 32.3%; χ

conclusionsThis survey provides insight into how English general practices and their staff regard decarbonisation activities. The findings highlight the importance of leadership, resources and incentives in driving such activities and have implications for initiatives to help achieve wider decarbonisation goals in healthcare.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelGeneral PracticePrimary Health CareCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesClimate changegeneral practicehealth servicesprimary care

Identifiers

PMID40681196
PMCPMC12273146

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.