An organising framework for healthcare decarbonisation research: an exploratory classification study
Petrova, M.; Burrows, F.; van der Scheer, J. W.; Kipouros, T.; Smith, J.
Show abstract
ObjectivesTo develop an organising framework for healthcare decarbonisation research which goes beyond classification schemes based on Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions or lists of loosely connected themes, and which is intended to support the coordination, funding and application of research into policy and practice. The organising framework should be focused on the NHS in England but enable application to healthcare systems more broadly. DesignAn exploratory manual (non-machine-led) classification study of over 160 research questions derived from a scoping review of 10 systematic reviews (118 screened), 13 stakeholder documents (35 key stakeholder websites searched), two research priority exercises, and four research funder sources (over 430 funding areas screened). The above and a further 21 sources were also used to identify areas without explicit research questions but of clear thematic relevance. SettingPrimarily high-income healthcare systems, with a focus on the NHS in England. ParticipantsNot applicable. Primary outcomeA multi-level thematic framework representing current and missing areas of research in healthcare decarbonisation. ResultsThe framework comprises six top-level themes, grouping 39 sub-themes at level two, and 86 sub-themes at level three. The top-level themes are: Natural resource use and sources of carbon; Healthcare contexts; Solutions; Stakeholders; Organisational levers for change; and Scientific measurement and theory (the "NHS-SOS framework"). ConclusionsThis framework offers a structured, empirically derived representation of the emerging field of healthcare decarbonisation research. It is intended as a living tool to support shared understanding, prioritisation and action, and to foster coherence in a currently fragmented research landscape. Article summaryO_ST_ABSStrengths and limitations of this studyC_ST_ABSO_LIThe study used a transparent and structured process to derive themes from over 160 research questions, sourced from a diverse set of systematic reviews, stakeholder documents, research priority exercises, and funding calls. C_LIO_LIThe inductive approach respected the complexity, breadth and multiple perspectives inherent to healthcare decarbonisation research. C_LIO_LIThe study drew on a wide range of sources selected for conceptual and perspectival breadth but was nonetheless small relative to the volume of publications in the field. C_LIO_LIMany of the research questions were not explicitly stated in the source documents and had to be derived through interpretive analysis. This introduced a potential for bias, which was mitigated through a clearly documented and transparent process outlining how interpretations were made. C_LI
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Is artificial intelligence for medical professionals serving the patients? Protocol for a mixed method systematic review on patient-relevant benefits and harms of algorithmic decision-making 91%
- Evidence-Based, Cost-Effective Interventions To Suppress The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review 90%
- To Include or Not to Include? A prescription from the pharmacy on how to use active learning assisted screening in systematic reviews 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- How and why do Quality Circles work for General Practitioners - a realist approach 93%
- The use of the positive deviance approach for healthcare system service improvement: A scoping review protocol 92%
- Ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes among healthcare workers in the United Kingdom: UK-REACH ethico-legal research, qualitative research on healthcare workers’ experiences, and stakeholder engagement protocol 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Applying machine-learning to rapidly analyse large qualitative text datasets to inform the COVID-19 pandemic response: Comparing human and machine-assisted topic analysis techniques 90%
- Agility and sustainability: A qualitative evaluation of COVID-19 Non-pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs) in the UK logistics sector 90%
- Cross-sector Decision Landscape in Response to COVID-19: A Qualitative Analysis of North Carolina Decision-Makers 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Knowledge mobilisation of rapid evidence reviews to inform health and social care policy and practice in a public health emergency: appraisal of the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre processes and impact, 2021-23 95%
- Wellbeing Impact Study of High-Speed 2 (WISH2): Protocol for a mixed-methods examination of the impact of major transport infrastructure development on mental health and wellbeing 93%
- Protocol for a scoping review investigating success in research capacity building for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- ‘Leading from the front’ implementation strategies increase the success of influenza vaccination drives among healthcare workers: A reanalysis of Systematic Review evidence using Intervention Component Analysis (ICA) and Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) 94%
- The Monash Learning Health System Maturity Matrix: Codesign of a Tool to Measure and Guide Improvement in Complex Health System Behaviour 93%
- Healthcare workers experiences of working on the frontline and views about support during COVID-19 and comparable pandemics: A rapid review and meta-synthesis 91%
"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.