Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41647130›Full record

ReviewThe journal of climate change and health

Analyzing telehealth emissions and variations in primary care settings - A scoping review.

Rachel de Sain, Amanda Irwin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The journal of climate change and health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

2 authors.

Rachel de SainISA, School of Physics, A28, The University of Sydney, NSW, 2006.
Amanda IrwinISA, School of Physics, A28, The University of Sydney, NSW, 2006.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: In facing the dual challenge of climate change's health impacts and healthcare's greenhouse gas emissions, telehealth emerges as a promising, low-carbon alternative. While existing literature emphasizes its implications in secondary and acute care, a significant gap exists regarding its impact on primary care emissions. Methods: This scoping review analyzes 45 studies examining telehealth's impact on emissions, focusing on five studies in primary care settings. Using the Arksey and O'Malley Framework, it aims to understand the calculation methods and average emissions avoided per telehealth consultation in primary care, comparing them to secondary and acute settings. Results: Results reveal that primary care telehealth emissions savings align with those in secondary and acute settings, mainly stemming from avoided transport emissions (ATE). However, variables to calculate ATE, including distance traveled, public transport, and non-emitting vehicle use, exhibit broader influences, and a model for their calculation will be developed for future studies. The findings of this review draw upon data from over 87 million primary care telehealth consultations across five studies, reporting an average avoided carbon emission of 7.7kg CO

Indexed as

Carbon emissionsClimate changeHealth systemsSustainabilityTelemedicineVirtual health

Identifiers

PMID41647130
PMCPMC12851174

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.