A focus group study of ethical issues during climate-informed health decision-making

A focus group study of ethical issues during climate-informed health decision-making | Nature Climate Change

Abstract

Healthcare delivery contributes to carbon emissions, exacerbating climate change and its associated health impacts. There is limited understanding of stakeholder views regarding ethical issues at the intersection of health choices and environmental impact. Here we performed a qualitative study involving seven focus groups with 46 participants who were patients and physicians in the northeastern US health systems. Both patients and physicians were amenable to health decisions that are beneficial for the environment and health. A consumptive healthcare system impeded both groups’ assumption of health-related climate responsibilities. Physicians, however, underestimated patients’ interest in discussing the environmental impacts of health decisions. Patients expressed tension between a personal interest in limiting climate change through health choices and ensuring others were also accountable; they were also concerned that physician paternalism might impede climate-informed health conversations. These findings outline barriers to climate-informed healthcare and begin to establish how they can be addressed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

$29.99 / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

$209.00 per year

only $17.42 per issue

Buy this article

- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Data availability

The institutional review board approval for this study does not allow for individual participant data or complete transcripts of the focus group text to be released. Additional de-identified quotes and code books supporting the findings are available upon request to the corresponding author and are subject to approval by the institutional review board. The corresponding author will attempt to respond to requests within 12 weeks, subject to institutional review board approval.

1.
Romanello, M. et al. The 2022 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: health at the mercy of fossil fuels. Lancet 400, 1619–1654 (2022).
2.
Eckelman, M. J. et al. Health care pollution and public health damage in the United States: an update. Health Aff. 39, 2071–2079 (2020).
3.
Tennison, I. et al. Health care’s response to climate change: a carbon footprint assessment of the NHS in England. Lancet Planet. Health 5, e84–e92 (2021).
4.
Salas, R. N., Miller, J. & Neira, M. Health at COP26: just the beginning. Brit. Med. J. 375, n2960 (2021).
5.
MacNeill, A. J., Lillywhite, R. & Brown, C. J. The impact of surgery on global climate: a carbon footprinting study of operating theatres in three health systems. Lancet Planet. Health 1, e381–e388 (2017).
6.
Dacones, I., Cave, C., Furie, G. L., Ogden, C. A. & Slutzman, J. E. Patient transport greenhouse gas emissions from outpatient care at an integrated health care system in the Northwestern United States, 2015–2020. J. Clim. Change Health 3, 100024 (2021).
7.
Wang, E. Y. et al. Environmental emissions reduction of a preoperative evaluation center utilizing telehealth screening and standardized preoperative testing guidelines. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 171, 105652 (2021).
8.
Patel, S. D. & Smith-Steinert, R. Greening the operating room, one procedure at a time. J. Clim. Change Health 2, 100014 (2021).
9.
Janson, C. et al. Carbon footprint impact of the choice of inhalers for asthma and COPD. Thorax 75, 82–84 (2020).
10.
Quitmann, C., Griesel, S., Nayna Schwerdtle, P., Danquah, I. & Herrmann, A. Climate-sensitive health counselling: a scoping review and conceptual framework. Lancet Planet. Health 7, e600–e610 (2023).
11.
Bose-O’Reilly, S. et al. Health effects of climate change – are they sufficiently addressed in pediatric settings in Germany to meet parents’ needs? J. Clim. Change Health 6, 100129 (2022).
12.
Brand, G. et al. ‘I teach it because it is the biggest threat to health’: integrating sustainable healthcare into health professions education. Med. Teach. 43, 325–333 (2020).
13.
One Health (World Health Organization, 2024);
https://www.who.int/health-topics/one-health#tab=tab_1
14.
Richie, C. A brief history of environmental bioethics. Virtual Mentor 16, 749–752 (2014).
15.
Richie C. Principles of Green Bioethics: Sustainability in Health Care (Michigan State Univ. Press, 2019).
16.
Richie, C., Kesselheim, A. S. & Jones, D. S. Climate change and the prescription pad. Lancet 401, 178–179 (2023).
17.
Greene, J., Skolnik, C. L. & Merritt, M. W. How medicine becomes trash: disposability in health care. Lancet 400, 1298–1299 (2022).
18.
Morgan, D. J., Leppin, A. L., Smith, C. D. & Korenstein, D. A practical framework for understanding and reducing medical overuse: conceptualizing overuse through the patient–clinician interaction. J. Hosp. Med. 12, 346–351 (2017).
19.
Van Houtan, K. S., Tanaka, K. R., Gagne, T. O. & Becker, S. L. The geographic disparity of historical greenhouse emissions and projected climate change. Sci. Adv. 7, eabe4342 (2021).
20.
Climate Change and Social Vulnerability in the United States: A Focus on Six Impacts EPA 430-R-21-003 (Environmental Protection Agency, 2021).
21.
Auckland, C. et al. Medical ethics and the climate change emergency. J. Med. Ethics 48, 939–940 (2022).
22.
The Climate Resilience for Frontline Clinics Toolkit (Americares, accessed 24 January 2024);
https://www.americares.org/what-we-do/community-health/climate-resilien…
23.
Jameton, A. & Pierce, J. Can clinical ethics survive climate change? Perspect. Biol. Med. 64, 511–540 (2021).
24.
Macpherson, C. C. Climate change is a bioethics problem. Bioethics 27, 305–308 (2013).
25.
Hantel A., Marron, J. M. & Abel, G. A. Establishing and defining an approach to climate conscious clinical medical ethics. Am. J. Bioethics
https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2024.2337418(2024).
26.
Hantel, A. et al. ASCO ethical guidance for the practical management of oncology drug shortages. J. Clin. Oncol. 42, 358–365 (2024).
27.
Richie, C., Kesselheim, A. S. & Jones, D. S. Concerns about climate activism in clinical practice – Authors’ reply. Lancet 401, 1772 (2023).
28.
Climate Resources For Health Education (Columbia Univ. Mailman School of Public Health, accessed 20 November 2023);
https://climatehealthed.org/
29.
Buckley M. R. F. Connecting climate change and health. News & Research (Harvard Medical School, 2023);
https://hms.harvard.edu/news/connecting-climate-change-health
30.
Reismann, L., Weber, A., Leitzmann, M. & Jochem, C. Climate-specific health literacy and medical advice: the potential for health co-benefits and climate change mitigation. An exploratory study. J. Clim. Change Health 4, 100072 (2021).
31.
Amelung, D. et al. Human health as a motivator for climate change mitigation: results from four European high-income countries. Glob. Environ. Change 57, 101918 (2019).
32.
Marseille, E. & Kahn, J. G. Utilitarianism and the ethical foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis in resource allocation for global health. Philos. Ethics Humanit. Med. 14, 5 (2019).
33.
Senay, E. & Hantel, A. Environmental health: translating policy into action. Ann. Intern. Med. 175, 1612–1613 (2022).
34.
Senay, E., Cort, T., Perkison, W., Laestadius, J. G. & Sherman, J. D. What can hospitals learn from the Coca-Cola Company? Health care sustainability reporting. NEJM Catal. Innov. Care Deliv.
https://doi.org/10.1056/cat.21.0362(2022).
35.
Bhopal, A. & Norheim, O. F. Priority setting and net zero healthcare: how much health can a tonne of carbon buy? Brit. Med. J. 375, e067199 (2021).
36.
Lee, L. M. A bridge back to the future: public health ethics, bioethics, and environmental ethics. Am. J. Bioeth. 17, 5–12 (2017).
37.
Childers, J. W., Bulls, H. & Arnold, R. Beyond the NURSE acronym: the functions of empathy in serious illness conversations. J. Pain Symptom Manage. 65, e375–e379 (2023).
38.
Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D. & Guassora, A. D. Sample size in qualitative interview studies. Qual. Health Res. 26, 1753–1760 (2016).
39.
Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N. & Marconi, V. C. Code saturation versus meaning saturation. Qual. Health Res. 27, 591–608 (2016).
40.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners (SAGE, 2013).
41.
Green, J. & Thorogood, N. Qualitative Methods for Health Research 4th edn (SAGE, 2018).
42.
Greenbaum, T. L. Moderating Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Group Facilitation (SAGE, 2000).

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Greenwall Foundation (Making-a-Difference award to A.H.). A.H. was also supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (K08 CA273043). The sponsors had no role in the study design; collection, analysis and interpretation of the data; writing of the report; or the decision to submit for publication. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of Health and Human Services, and mention of trade names, commercial products or organizations does not imply endorsement by the US government.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

A.H. reports receiving personal fees from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene and GSK (advisory boards), the American Journal of Managed Care (speaking fee), Genentech and Jazz Pharmaceuticals (consultancy), and Real Chemistry (spousal employment) outside the submitted work. G.A.A. reports receiving personal fees (consultancy) from Novartis outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Climate Change thanks Iris Blom, Zerina Lokmic Tomkins and Julian Sheather for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–4 and Text.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

About this article

Cite this article

Hantel, A., Senay, E., Richie, C. et al. A focus group study of ethical issues during climate-informed health decision-making. Nat. Clim. Chang. (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02121-z

-
Received:
-
Accepted:
-
Published:
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-024-02121-z