ArticleThe journal of climate change and health
Perceptions of the environmental impact of oncology care: A cross-sectional survey of French and Belgian healthcare professionals.
Article 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 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Health care is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions; however, the specific environmental burden of oncology is poorly characterized. This study aimed to assess oncology healthcare professionals' perceptions of the environmental impact of their clinical practice. Methods: We conducted an anonymous, cross-sectional survey between January and April 2025 among oncology healthcare professionals in France and Belgium. A 23-item questionnaire was developed by a multidisciplinary team and administered via professional networks, oncology societies, and social media. The survey assessed perceptions of oncology's environmental impact, attitudes toward sustainable practices, and willingness to modify clinical decisions when supported by scientific evidence. Results: Among 330 respondents (73% women; median age, 39 years), 32% were medical oncologists, 25% nurses, 8% advanced practice nurses, and 35% other professionals involved in cancer care. Respondents mainly worked in comprehensive cancer centers (45%) or university hospitals (29%). Two-thirds perceived oncology as having a greater negative environmental impact than other medical specialties. Ranked from most to least impactful, the main perceived sources of environmental burden were chemotherapy, biotherapy, radiotherapy, imaging, and patient transport. The integration of environmental considerations into clinical decision-making was low (mean score 8.3/100, SD 14.9), and institutional efforts to reduce impact were perceived as insufficient (mean 15.3/100, SD 20.7). Almost all respondents (97.7%) were willing to implement lower-impact strategies if supported by equivalence data regarding efficacy. Conclusion: Oncology professionals in France and Belgium recognize that the environmental footprint of cancer care is insufficiently addressed. They express a strong willingness to adapt their practice toward more sustainable models, provided scientific validation exists. Integrating environmental criteria into oncology decision-making and research frameworks will be important for the future sustainability of cancer care.
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.