Critical review of environmental impact evaluations of electronic healthcare devices: challenges and recommendations

There has been a recent proliferation of electronic healthcare devices (EHDs); however, their environmental impacts are not yet fully understood. EHDs have direct environmental impacts attributed to the life cycle stages including raw material extraction, manufacturing, distribution, use, and end-of-life (EOL). In addition to the direct impacts, there are indirect impacts that arise from the use of these devices such as favourable effects on the optimization of healthcare procedures and adverse impacts arising from the additional demand for resources. This critical review aimed to gain insight into the state of the art of environmental impact assessments of EHDs, after which challenges were identified and recommendations provided to move towards comprehensive environmental sustainability assessments. The literature review relied on three databases (PubMED, Scopus, and Embase) and specific screening steps, resulting in 17 articles, ten of which applied life cycle assessment. This paper identified methodological challenges in the selected studies and lack of consistency in evaluating the environmental impacts of EHDs. For example, seven studies used device-oriented FU, while others applied a treatment-oriented FU, however, all of which aim to investigate the environmental performance of EHDs. These inconsistencies between studies make it hard to understand the environmental sustainability of EHDs. Moreover, the impacts of these devices are mostly considered at the product level and overlook potential indirect impacts associated with the healthcare value delivered by the EHDs (e.g. fewer hospital bed days). It is important to consider a wider boundary of healthcare pathway rather than the narrow boundary of the device. This will involve considering both the direct life cycle impacts of the device (e.g. impacts related to production or end-of-life) and the positive and negative effects of using the EHDs at the healthcare pathway level. This would result in comprehensive environmental sustainability assessments of EHDs from a healthcare perspective.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
Published
2025-01-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-024-02415-6
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Green IT and Sustainability
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.46

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Critical review of environmental impact evaluations of electronic healthcare devices: challenges and recommendations

Erasmo Cadena, Lieselot Boone, Wouter De Soete, Jo Dewulf et al.
2 citations
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
Green IT and Sustainability
1.46
article

Critical review of environmental impact evaluations of electronic healthcare devices: challenges and recommendations

Erasmo Cadena, Lieselot Boone, Wouter De Soete, Jo Dewulf, Naomi Muindi, Kenneth Robertshaw
article en
2 citations

Abstract

There has been a recent proliferation of electronic healthcare devices (EHDs); however, their environmental impacts are not yet fully understood. EHDs have direct environmental impacts attributed to the life cycle stages including raw material extraction, manufacturing, distribution, use, and end-of-life (EOL). In addition to the direct impacts, there are indirect impacts that arise from the use of these devices such as favourable effects on the optimization of healthcare procedures and adverse impacts arising from the additional demand for resources. This critical review aimed to gain insight into the state of the art of environmental impact assessments of EHDs, after which challenges were identified and recommendations provided to move towards comprehensive environmental sustainability assessments. The literature review relied on three databases (PubMED, Scopus, and Embase) and specific screening steps, resulting in 17 articles, ten of which applied life cycle assessment. This paper identified methodological challenges in the selected studies and lack of consistency in evaluating the environmental impacts of EHDs. For example, seven studies used device-oriented FU, while others applied a treatment-oriented FU, however, all of which aim to investigate the environmental performance of EHDs. These inconsistencies between studies make it hard to understand the environmental sustainability of EHDs. Moreover, the impacts of these devices are mostly considered at the product level and overlook potential indirect impacts associated with the healthcare value delivered by the EHDs (e.g. fewer hospital bed days). It is important to consider a wider boundary of healthcare pathway rather than the narrow boundary of the device. This will involve considering both the direct life cycle impacts of the device (e.g. impacts related to production or end-of-life) and the positive and negative effects of using the EHDs at the healthcare pathway level. This would result in comprehensive environmental sustainability assessments of EHDs from a healthcare perspective.

The International Journal of Life Cycle AssessmentVol. 30(4)
Janssen (Belgium) (BE), Ghent University (BE), St. Anthony’s Hospital (US)
HORIZON EUROPE Reforming and enhancing the European Research and Innovation system
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 20%
Green IT and Sustainability
1.46
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.