Back

Perceptions and Experiences of Healthcare Professionals Regarding Green Practices to Promote Environmental Sustainability in Health Services: A Protocol for a Systematic Review of Qualitative Evidence

Shankar, R.; Devi, F.; Xu, Q.

2025-07-07 occupational and environmental health
10.1101/2025.07.06.25330984 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe healthcare sector significantly contributes to environmental degradation and climate change. Implementing sustainable practices, known as "green practices," can mitigate these negative impacts. Healthcare professionals play a crucial role in adopting and promoting green practices, but their perceptions and experiences are not well understood. ObjectiveThis systematic review protocol outlines methods for synthesizing qualitative evidence on healthcare professionals perceptions and experiences regarding green practices in health services. The review aims to identify facilitators, barriers, and strategies for implementing green practices from healthcare professionals perspectives. MethodsWe will search PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and Scopus from each databases inception to July 2025. We will include qualitative studies exploring healthcare professionals perceptions and experiences regarding green practices in health services. Two reviewers will independently screen studies using Covidence, extract data, and assess methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist. We will use thematic synthesis to analyze findings. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. DiscussionThis review will provide insights into healthcare professionals perceptions and experiences regarding green practices. Findings will inform strategies for implementing sustainable practices in healthcare, considering key stakeholders perspectives. This may contribute to reducing healthcares environmental impact and improving planetary health. Limitations include English language restriction and potential non-generalizability of qualitative evidence.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.