Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42265692›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2026

Climate change and professional responsibility: a cross-sectional survey among German general practitioners.

Niklas Freese, Anja Hesse, Bjarn-Ove Tetzlaff, Sabine Salloch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. 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

4 authors.

Niklas FreeseHannover Medical School, Institute for Ethics, History and Philosophy of Medicine, Carl-Neuberg-Str.1, 30625, Hannover, Germany. niklas.freese@stud.mh-hannover.de.
Anja HesseHannover Medical School, Institute of General Medicine and Palliative Medicine, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Bjarn-Ove TetzlaffDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.
Sabine SallochHannover Medical School, Institute for Ethics, History and Philosophy of Medicine, Carl-Neuberg-Str.1, 30625, Hannover, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClimate change increasingly affects population health and healthcare systems. While normative frameworks emphasize physicians' societal role in climate protection, empirical evidence on how general practitioners perceive and address climate- and environment-related issues in daily clinical practice remains somewhat limited and not yet fully consistent across studies.

methodsWe conducted a nationwide cross-sectional online survey among general practitioners (N = 500; 38.2% female) in Germany. The questionnaire assessed attitudes toward climate protection, attribution of responsibility for climate- and environment-related practice in healthcare, and the frequency of addressing climate- and environment-related issues in practice by patients and practitioners. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, group comparisons, and correlation analyses.

resultsA majority of respondents (65.8%) considered climate- and environment-related issues relevant to their professional role and endorsed physicians' function as societal role models. Agreement regarding individual responsibility within clinical practice was comparatively moderate (22.6%), with responsibility more frequently attributed to institutional (29.1%) and policy levels (49.2%). Attitudes toward environmental responsibility were largely consistent across subgroups defined by federal state, community size, practice type, and professional experience, while female general practitioners reported higher levels of environmental concern (M = 3.94 vs. M = 3.43; p < .001), indicating a small to moderate effect. Climate- and environment-related issues were reported to arise regularly in general practice, initiated by both physicians and patients (monthly or more often in physicians 68.4% versus patients 59.2%; never in physicians 12.4% versus patients 12.6%). DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsThe findings suggest that German general practitioners broadly acknowledge the relevance of climate- and environment-related issues to their professional role and are open to integrating such considerations into clinical context. At the same time, ambivalence regarding individual responsibility highlights the need for clearer normative orientation. Integrating climate- and environment-related considerations into professional standards, clinical guidelines, and medical education may help provide such orientation and support physicians in navigating ethical tensions.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelClimate ChangeGeneral PractitionersPhysician's RoleProfessional RoleSocial ResponsibilityAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesClimate changeClinical decision-makingCross-sectional surveyEnvironmental sustainabilityGeneral practiceGeneral practitionersGermanyMedical ethicsPlanetary healthPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID42265692
PMCPMC13248457

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.