A Transparency Checklist for Carbon Footprint Calculations Applied within a Systematic Review of Virtual Care Interventions

Oliver Lange, Julian Plath, Timo F. Dziggel, David F. Karpa, Mattis Keil, Tom Becker and Wolf H. Rogowski
Additional contact information
Oliver Lange: Department of Health Care Management, Institute of Public Health and Nursing Research, Health Sciences, University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany
Julian Plath: Professional Public Decision Making, Faculty of Cultural Studies, University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany
Timo F. Dziggel: Professional Public Decision Making, Faculty of Cultural Studies, University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany
David F. Karpa: Faculty of Business Studies and Economics, University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany
Mattis Keil: Department of Health Care Management, Institute of Public Health and Nursing Research, Health Sciences, University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany
Tom Becker: Professional Public Decision Making, Faculty of Cultural Studies, University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany
Wolf H. Rogowski: Department of Health Care Management, Institute of Public Health and Nursing Research, Health Sciences, University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 19, issue 12, 1-14

Abstract: Increasing concerns about climate change imply that decisions on the digitization of healthcare should consider evidence about its carbon footprint (CF). This study aims to develop a transparency catalogue for reporting CF calculations, to compare results, and to assess the transparency (reporting quality) of the current evidence of virtual care (VC) intervention. We developed a checklist of transparency criteria based on the consolidation of three established standards/norms for CF calculation. We conducted a systematic review of primary studies written in English or German on the CF of VC interventions to check applicability. Based on our checklist, we extracted methodological information. We compared the results and calculated a transparency score. The checklist comprises 22 items in the aim, scope, data and analysis categories. Twenty-three studies out of 1466 records were included, mostly addressing telemedicine. The mean transparency score was 38% (minimum 14%, maximum 68%). On average, 148 kg carbon dioxide equivalents per patient were saved. Digitization may have co-benefits, improving care and reducing the healthcare CF. However, the evidence for this is weak, and CF reports are heterogeneous. Our transparency checklist may serve as a reference for developing a standard to assess the CF of virtual and other healthcare and public health services.

Keywords: carbon footprint; carbon dioxide equivalents; greenhouse gas; digital health; virtual care; telemedicine; telehealth; e-health; digital public health; systematic review (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/12/7474/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/12/7474/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:12:p:7474-:d:841934

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().