Background: Healthcare contributes substantially to climate change. GPs want to implement sustainable healthcare, but are hesitant; worried that this may jeopardise their patient-physician relationship. However, whether this concern is valid is yet to be assessed. Aim: To explore patients perspectives on sustainable healthcare in general practice. Design and setting: In 2022 and 2023 we performed an online study, among Dutch GP patients, using experimental vignettes and a questionnaire. Method: The vignettes described GP appointments for three health complaints with randomly allocated treatment advice, varying in sustainability and explanation, but with comparable health outcomes. The questionnaire assessed patients perspectives on sustainable healthcare in general practice. We analysed the vignettes using mixed-design ANOVA and the questionnaire using descriptive statistics and correlations. Results: 801 participants completed the vignettes, and 397 the questionnaire. We found no difference on satisfaction with a doctors visit (Ps>.238) when comparing a sustainable and a non-sustainable treatment option. The effect of explicitly mentioning sustainability differed per health complaint (dyspnoea: no difference; knee pain: MD=.319, P=.002; erythema: MD=-.227, P=.003). In the questionnaire, participants reported positive expectations, and trust in the GP and treatment when delivering sustainable healthcare, but were more neutral about the GPs role. Conclusion: We found no indication that sustainable treatment advice leads to lower satisfaction with healthcare. The effect of explicitly mentioning sustainability was minimal and differed per health complaint. When directly asked, patients were mainly positive about sustainable healthcare. These results could encourage GPs to introduce sustainable treatment advice, without worrying about negatively influencing patient satisfaction.
Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocolshttps://aspredicted.org/2df6w.pdf
Funding StatementThis study was funded by the innovation fund of the General Practitioner Specialty Training (Innovatiefonds Huisartsopleiding Nederland) (7020).
Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by the Departmental Ethical Review Board of Leiden University Medical Centre (#22-3046)
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data AvailabilityData and syntaxes will be made available on the Open Science Framework after publication
留言 (0)