Recent research from Dana-Farber Cancer Institute highlights a rising interest in incorporating environmental considerations into health care discussions. Despite the lack of focus on this issue in typical patient-physician conversations, a new study reveals that both doctors and patients are open to addressing environmental impacts when discussing treatment options.
The study, published in Nature Climate Change, involved focus groups across various U.S. regions. It found that educating doctors about the environmental costs of treatments could be a key first step. Andrew Hantel, MD, and Gregory Abel, MD, MPH, who led the research, emphasize that the U.S. health care sector contributes 8.5% of national greenhouse gas emissions and 25% of global health care emissions. These emissions have health consequences comparable to those of major cancers like pancreatic and colon cancer.
Hantel explains, “We aimed to explore physicians’ awareness of their responsibility to tackle this issue and gauge patients’ willingness to adjust their care to reduce emissions and harm.”
The study included seven focus groups with 46 participants—three groups of physicians and four of patients. Findings indicate that patients are interested in discussing environmental impacts and are open to effective treatment alternatives that are less harmful to the environment.
For instance, some patients with asthma or COPD might choose powdered inhalers over aerosolized ones due to their lower environmental impact. “While both types are effective, powdered inhalers offer significant environmental benefits,” Hantel notes.
Approximately two-thirds of the focus group participants were from racial and ethnic minority groups, who are often most affected by climate change. These participants were eager to make eco-friendly health decisions but also wanted accountability from major climate contributors. Concerns were raised about potential physician paternalism, which might hinder discussions about climate-conscious care.
Many physicians assumed patients were uninterested in the environmental impact of their health choices. They also felt unprepared, as their medical education did not cover this topic adequately. Additionally, doctors noted that a culture of resource consumption in health care limits their ability to make environmentally friendly choices.
“There is a perception of systemic resistance to changes that could benefit both patients and the environment,” Hantel observes.
Overall, both physicians and patients agree that immediate health concerns should take precedence. However, when treatment options offer both health and environmental benefits, both groups are open to exploring these choices.
“Our research underscores the need for improved education for health professionals on how to make and advocate for environmentally friendly changes within their institutions,” Hantel says. “The goal is not to place the burden of climate-informed decisions on patients but to integrate these discussions into regular conversations between doctors and patients.”
