IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i12p7474-d841934.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Oliver Lange

    (Department of Health Care Management, Institute of Public Health and Nursing Research, Health Sciences, University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany
    Leibniz ScienceCampus Digital Public Health Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Julian Plath

    (Professional Public Decision Making, Faculty of Cultural Studies, University of Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • 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
    Leibniz ScienceCampus Digital Public Health Bremen, 28359 Bremen, Germany)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Oliver Lange & Julian Plath & Timo F. Dziggel & David F. Karpa & Mattis Keil & Tom Becker & Wolf H. Rogowski, 2022. "A Transparency Checklist for Carbon Footprint Calculations Applied within a Systematic Review of Virtual Care Interventions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-14, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:12:p:7474-:d:841934
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/12/7474/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/12/7474/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Don Husereau & Michael Drummond & Stavros Petrou & Chris Carswell & David Moher & Dan Greenberg & Federico Augustovski & Andrew Briggs & Josephine Mauskopf & Elizabeth Loder, 2013. "Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(3), pages 367-372, June.
    2. Tao Gao & Qing Liu & Jianping Wang, 2014. "A comparative study of carbon footprint and assessment standards," International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 237-243.
    3. Josep Vidal-Alaball & Jordi Franch-Parella & Francesc Lopez Seguí & Francesc Garcia Cuyàs & Jacobo Mendioroz Peña, 2019. "Impact of a Telemedicine Program on the Reduction in the Emission of Atmospheric Pollutants and Journeys by Road," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-7, November.
    4. Johan Rockström & Will Steffen & Kevin Noone & Åsa Persson & F. Stuart Chapin & Eric F. Lambin & Timothy M. Lenton & Marten Scheffer & Carl Folke & Hans Joachim Schellnhuber & Björn Nykvist & Cynthia , 2009. "A safe operating space for humanity," Nature, Nature, vol. 461(7263), pages 472-475, September.
    5. Zhou, Xiaoyong & Zhou, Dequn & Wang, Qunwei & Su, Bin, 2019. "How information and communication technology drives carbon emissions: A sector-level analysis for China," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 380-392.
    6. Galvin, Ray, 2015. "The ICT/electronics question: Structural change and the rebound effect," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 23-31.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sun, Hongye & Kim, Giseung, 2021. "The composite impact of ICT industry on lowering carbon intensity: From the perspective of regional heterogeneity," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    2. Wolf Rogowski & Wolfram Elsner, 2021. "How economics can help mitigate climate change - a critical review and conceptual analysis of economic paradigms," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2106, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    3. Giovanna Elisa Calabrò & Sara Boccalini & Donatella Panatto & Caterina Rizzo & Maria Luisa Di Pietro & Fasika Molla Abreha & Marco Ajelli & Daniela Amicizia & Angela Bechini & Irene Giacchetta & Piero, 2022. "The New Quadrivalent Adjuvanted Influenza Vaccine for the Italian Elderly: A Health Technology Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-14, March.
    4. Nelson, Ewan & Warren, Peter, 2020. "UK transport decoupling: On track for clean growth in transport?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 39-51.
    5. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    6. Richter, Andries & Dakos, Vasilis, 2015. "Profit fluctuations signal eroding resilience of natural resources," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 12-21.
    7. Rostami-Tabar, Bahman & Ali, Mohammad M. & Hong, Tao & Hyndman, Rob J. & Porter, Michael D. & Syntetos, Aris, 2022. "Forecasting for social good," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 1245-1257.
    8. Huiyuan Guan & Yongping Bai & Chunyue Zhang, 2022. "Research on Ecosystem Security and Restoration Pattern of Urban Agglomeration in the Yellow River Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-19, September.
    9. Filipa Correia & Philipp Erfruth & Julie Bryhn, 2018. "The 2030 Agenda: The roadmap to GlobALLizaton," Working Papers 156, United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs.
    10. Birgit Kopainsky & Anita Frehner & Adrian Müller, 2020. "Sustainable and healthy diets: Synergies and trade‐offs in Switzerland," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 908-927, November.
    11. Hervé Corvellec & Johan Hultman & Anne Jerneck & Susanne Arvidsson & Johan Ekroos & Niklas Wahlberg & Timothy W. Luke, 2021. "Resourcification: A non‐essentialist theory of resources for sustainable development," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(6), pages 1249-1256, November.
    12. Pérez-Sánchez, Laura & Velasco-Fernández, Raúl & Giampietro, Mario, 2021. "The international division of labor and embodied working time in trade for the US, the EU and China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    13. Wang, Jianda & Yang, Senmiao & Dong, Kangyin & Nepal, Rabindra, 2024. "Assessing embodied carbon emission and its drivers in China's ICT sector: Multi-regional input-output and structural decomposition analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    14. Islam, Moinul & Kotani, Koji & Managi, Shunsuke, 2016. "Climate perception and flood mitigation cooperation: A Bangladesh case study," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 117-133.
    15. Lange, Steffen & Pohl, Johanna & Santarius, Tilman, 2020. "Digitalization and energy consumption. Does ICT reduce energy demand?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    16. Yutong Zhang & Wei Zhou & Danxue Luo, 2023. "The Relationship Research between Biodiversity Conservation and Economic Growth: From Multi-Level Attempts to Key Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, February.
    17. Carina Mueller & Christopher West & Mairon G. Bastos Lima & Bob Doherty, 2023. "Demand-Side Actors in Agricultural Supply Chain Sustainability: An Assessment of Motivations for Action, Implementation Challenges, and Research Frontiers," World, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-20, September.
    18. Clarke, Lorcan, 2020. "An introduction to economic studies, health emergencies, and COVID-19," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 105051, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Najmiatul Fitria & Antoinette D. I. Asselt & Maarten J. Postma, 2019. "Cost-effectiveness of controlling gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 407-417, April.
    20. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:12:p:7474-:d:841934. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.