Conceptual approaches to guideline-relevant carbon footprint evaluation in dermatological treatments
This paper describes three conceptual approaches to compare the carbon footprint of diverse treatments during their use phase with the aim to drive international consensus on finding a fair and equitable way to integrate environmental impact into clinical guideline development.
Authors
- Misha Rosenbach
- Fatima Ali (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0637-472X)
- Dennis Niebel (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2069-0486)
- Rosie Vincent (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3559-6356)
- Eva Rawlings Parker (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2462-5051)
- R. A. Abbott
- Yasmin Nikookam (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0796-7233)
- Sarika Grover
- Williams Anne Hunt
- Simon Tso
- D. de Berker
- Eugene Tan
- Alex Gan
- Vinton Cheng
- Mythili Ramamurthy Srinivasan
Institutions
- North Bristol NHS Trust (GB)
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- University Hospital of Wales (GB)
- University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (GB)
- University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust (GB)
- University Hospital Regensburg (DE)
- University of Bristol (GB)
- King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- British Association of Dermatologists (GB)
- St. Thomas Hospital (CA)
- St Vincent's Clinic (AU)
- South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
- Australasian College of Dermatologists (AU)
- Cardiff University (GB)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- University of Birmingham (GB)
Publication Details
- Journal
- British Journal of Dermatology
- Published
- 2026-03-13
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1093/bjd/ljag102
- Primary Topic
- Climate Change and Health Impacts
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 0.00