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.

1
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
33.6%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 6%
23.0%
50% of probability mass above
3
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.4%
4
Systematic Reviews
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.4%
5
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.7%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 42%
2.9%
7
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.8%
8
Antibiotics
32 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.1%
9
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
10
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.1%
11
Archives of Public Health
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
12
Indoor Air
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.4%
13
Environment International
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
14
Environmental Research Letters
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
15
Environmental Research
46 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
16
American Journal of Infection Control
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
17
The Innovation
12 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
18
Environmental Health Perspectives
17 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
19
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
20
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
16 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
21
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.5%
22
Open Research Europe
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.5%