Back

Integrating environmental sustainability in clinical counselling: a randomised, double-blinded, experimental vignette study of satisfaction with care

van Bree, E. M.; van Gestel, L. C.; Visser, E. H.; Aardoom, J. J.; Brakema, E. A.; Adriaanse, M. A.

2025-03-24 health systems and quality improvement
10.1101/2025.03.23.25324468 medRxiv
Show abstract

STRUCTURED ABSTRACTO_ST_ABSObjectiveC_ST_ABSto explore whether advising environmentally sustainable treatment options in clinical counselling affects patients satisfaction with care compared to less sustainable (standard) options - accounting for differences in severity and types of medical problems. Designa randomised, double-blinded, experimental vignette study with a four (between-group, Type of Advice) x two (between-group, Severity) x five (within-group, Medical Problem) mixed design. Participants received short descriptions of hypothetical patient-physician interactions based on their group allocation and subsequently indicated their satisfaction with care. Settinga general practice or hospital visit. Participantsa representative sample of the general Dutch adult population. Interventionsfour different types of medical advice, varying in level of environmental sustainability and whether sustainability is mentioned explicitly. Main outcome measuressatisfaction with care, operationalised as: treatment acceptability, trust in the physician, trust in the treatment, and the feeling that the physician prioritised their health (Likert scales, 1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree). Results1,536 participants completed the study. Across vignettes, participants receiving the less sustainable advice (M=5.6, SD=1.2) were generally more satisfied than participants receiving the more sustainable types of advice (Ps<.001). Participants receiving the explicitly more sustainable advice (M=4.8, SD 1.6) were generally less satisfied than participants receiving the implicitly more sustainable types of advice (Ps<.001). Differences were larger for the high-severity conditions (mean differences 0.4 to 1.8, Ps<.001), non-significant for most low-severity conditions, and varied per medical problem. Conclusionsadvising more sustainable treatment options for high-severity conditions may negatively affect patients satisfaction with care, especially when sustainability is mentioned explicitly. However, the presence and size of the observed effect varied across medical problems and was generally non-significant or small for low-severity conditions. Clinicians situational awareness may differentiate whether sustainability should be discussed, or only guaranteed through institutional level decisions.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Environment International
42 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
29.2%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 10%
18.5%
3
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 3%
7.2%
50% of probability mass above
4
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.8%
5
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.9%
6
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.9%
7
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.2%
8
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
9
Nutrients
64 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
10
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
11
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.4%
12
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
16 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.3%
13
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
14
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
15
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.3%
16
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
17
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
18
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
19
Public Health
34 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
20
BMJ Public Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
21
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
22
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
23
Nature
575 papers in training set
Top 17%
0.7%
24
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 77%
0.7%
25
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
26
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%
27
Environmental Health Perspectives
17 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.5%
28
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%