ArticleBMC medicine2026
Ethical dilemmas in climate change and healthcare delivery: a cross-sectional survey of US patient perspectives.
Article in BMC medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Balancing the impact of socio-ethical and economic considerations on clinical-hospital decision-making.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare delivery produces substantial emissions that contribute to climate change and harm human health. Patient perspectives on ethical dilemmas, such as tradeoffs between individual health choices and public health harms mediated by climate change, are unclear.
methodsThis cross-sectional survey randomly sampled adult patients across four US health systems to assess their perspectives on ethical dilemmas in climate change and healthcare delivery; results were compared to a previous nationwide survey of US-based physicians. The mailed survey was developed iteratively through pre-testing and was designed to detect a 15% difference in the proportion willing to limit treatment options because of environmental impact according to respondents' perceived impact of climate change on their health. Secondary outcomes included physician responsibilities for healthcare sustainability and acceptability of environmentally motivated treatment tradeoffs.
resultsBetween 11/2023 and 9/2024, 289 of 516 patient surveys and 304 of 529 physician surveys were delivered and returned, for response rates of 56.0% and 57.5%, respectively. Most patients (79.1%) believed that environmental factors impacted their medical conditions, and 36.3% reported a moderate-to-high health impact from climate change, while 5.2% reported speaking with their doctor about climate and health interactions a moderate amount or more. Similar proportions of patients (35.8%) and physicians (35.0%) agreed with reducing healthcare's environmental impact even if it required limiting treatment options. Like physicians, patients' perceived health impact (moderate-to-high versus low-to-no) was associated with willingness to place such limits (adjusted OR 1.85; 95% CI 1.01, 3.41). Most patients (77.1%) were willing to accept some reduction in the likelihood of treatment response if that treatment was less environmentally impactful; unlike physicians, this did not vary by health impact (adjusted OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.63, 2.20). Almost all patients (96.8%) reported that physicians should help make healthcare sustainable, and 64.7% thought this included changing clinical practices.
conclusionsMany US patients and physicians recognize connections between health, healthcare delivery, and climate change, and accept environmentally motivated treatment tradeoffs, but do not discuss them in the clinic. Patient views largely parallel those of physicians, suggesting support for climate-informed medical practice and for incorporating environmental considerations into clinical decision-making.
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.