ArticleBMC health services research2026
The Green Planet: development and early evaluation of a novel method for climate actions in clinical practice.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClimate change is becoming an increasingly serious threat to human health. At the same time, healthcare delivery is contributing substantially to greenhouse gas emissions, thus aggravating climate disruption. To integrate climate actions into clinical practice is therefore important but remains challenging. Health professionals often express environmental awareness but face barriers to engaging in pro-climate behaviours at work. There is limited evidence on how workplace interventions can be designed and implemented to support such behaviours. This study describes the development and early evaluation of Green Planet, a co-created method designed to integrate climate awareness and actions into healthcare.
methodsThe Green Planet was developed through a service design process in collaboration with managers and clinical staff at a Swedish hospital, adapting an established quality improvement method, the Green Cross, to focus on climate actions. The method was tested over a six-weeks period in a medicine ward. A qualitative evaluation was conducted using eight semi-structured interviews, one focus group discussion with eleven participants, and three non-participatory observations. Data was analysed using an inductive thematic analysis to examine how the method was used in practice, and a deductive thematic analysis guided by the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model to explore how the intervention influenced conditions for pro-climate behaviours.
resultsThe Green Planet was largely implemented as intended, with local adaptations to fit clinical routines. Staff reported that the method increased awareness and knowledge about climate actions, promoted reflection on everyday practices, and fostered a sense of collective responsibility. The intervention enhanced capability, opportunity, and motivation for pro-climate behaviour, particularly by making climate actions visible, concrete, and part of daily team discussions. Challenges included variable staff engagement, time constraints, and reliance on a designated test leader.
conclusionsThis early evaluation suggests that a co-created, theory-informed method integrated into existing work routines can strengthen conditions for pro-climate behaviours in healthcare settings. The Green Planet shows promise as an adaptable approach to normalising climate action in everyday clinical practice. Further research is needed to assess long-term effects, scalability, and measurable environmental impact.
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.