MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410360828 · doi:10.4212/cjhp.3707

Exploring the Views of British Columbians Regarding the Environmental Impact of Medication Use

2025· article· en· W4410360828 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Madison Lai, Karen Dahri, Michael Legal

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts
Canadian institutionsSpinal Cord Injury BCVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHarmSustainabilityThematic analysisEnvironmental healthFamily medicinePsychologyQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Pharmaceuticals affect planetary health through environmental contamination from human excretions, improper drug disposal, and greenhouse gas emissions, derived from manufacturing as well as from use. Research suggests that patients will choose environmentally friendly options for minor ailments, but not severe conditions. To date, no Canadian research has explored patients’ views on this topic. Objectives: To characterize the views of British Columbians regarding medication-related environmental sustainability and to determine how these views relate to medication decisions. Methods: A web-based survey was distributed across British Columbia from October 30, 2023, to February 29, 2024. Residents of British Columbia at least 18 years of age who could complete an online survey in English were eligible to participate. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were used. Results: A total of 255 responses were received. When presented with a scenario related to stroke, more than half of respondents (51%) preferred the medication with higher efficacy and greater environmental harm; in contrast, for scenarios involving the common cold and asthma, more than half chose the medication with lower efficacy and lower environmental harm (54% and 59%, respectively). When cost was introduced, only 54% stated they would choose the more environmentally friendly medication if it was more expensive, whereas 97% would do so if it was less expensive. Themes from open-ended questions focused on cost, manufacturer considerations, and education. Conclusions: Respondents were willing to choose the environmentally friendly medication for less serious conditions, but not for conditions perceived as life-threatening and/or debilitating. Cost may be a barrier to accessing environmentally friendly options. Public education opportunities may help to inform more sustainable choices. Additionally, there may be value in manufacturer regulations or policies to ensure that the environmental impact of medications is considered. Keywords: sustainability of medications, environment, patient perception, medication choice, medication preference RÉSUMÉ Contexte : Les produits pharmaceutiques influencent la santé de la planète par la contamination de l’environnement due aux excrétions humaines, par l’élimination inadéquate des médicaments et par les émissions de gaz à effet de serre, provenant à la fois de la fabrication et de l’utilisation des produits. Des recherches indiquent que les patients choisiront des options écologiques pour des affections mineures, mais pas pour des problèmes graves. À ce jour, aucune recherche canadienne n’a exploré l’opinion des patients à ce sujet. Objectifs : Caractériser les opinions des habitants de la Colombie- Britannique concernant la durabilité environnementale liée aux médicaments et la manière dont leurs opinions influencent leurs décisions concernant les médicaments. Méthodologie : Un sondage en ligne a été distribué en Colombie- Britannique du 30 octobre 2023 au 29 février 2024. Les résidents de la Colombie-Britannique âgés d’au moins 18 ans pouvant remplir un sondage en ligne en anglais étaient admissibles à y participer. Des statistiques descriptives et une analyse thématique ont été utilisées. Résultats : Au total, 255 réponses ont été reçues. Lorsqu’un scénario lié à un accident vasculaire cérébral (AVC) leur a été présenté, plus de la moitié des participants (51 %) préféraient le médicament plus efficace, mais ayant aussi un plus grand impact environnemental; en revanche, pour les scénarios impliquant le rhume et l’asthme, plus de la moitié ont choisi le médicament ayant une moindre efficacité et un impact environnemental moins important (54 % et 59 %, respectivement). Lorsque le coût a été ajouté aux scénarios, seulement 54 % ont déclaré qu’ils choisiraient le médicament plus respectueux de l’environnement s’il était plus cher, tandis que 97 % le feraient s’il était moins cher. Les thèmes des réponses aux questions ouvertes portaient sur le coût, les considérations relatives aux fabricants et l’éducation. Conclusions : Les participants étaient prêts à choisir des médicaments respectueux de l’environnement pour des affections moins graves, mais pas pour des problèmes perçus comme menaçant la vie ou débilitants. Le coût pourrait constituer un obstacle au choix des options écologiques. L’information du public pourraient aider à l’éclairer sur des choix plus durables. De plus, il pourrait être utile d’instaurer des réglementations ou des politiques pour les fabricants afin de s’assurer que l’impact environnemental des médicaments soit pris en compte. Mots-clés : durabilité des médicaments, environnement, perception des patients, choix des médicaments, préférence médicamenteuse

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy→Same topicPharmaceutical and Antibiotic Environmental Impacts→French-language works237,207→