デジタルヘルスケア技術の炭素削減における環境影響：スコーピングレビュー

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:DHTの炭素削減効果を測る評価手法のばらつきと、LCA・EEIOの適用事例を整理する出発点になる。

🏢実務担当者:遠隔医療やデジタル化の導入効果をScope 3削減として説明する際、移動削減と電力・デバイス負荷の両面を示す根拠として使える。

🏛政策担当者:医療の脱炭素政策において、デジタル化の便益を過大評価せず標準的な算定手法を整備する必要性を示す。

Abstract Background Globally, the carbon footprint of the health care sector is significant and growing, and digital health care technologies (DHTs) offer unique opportunities to reduce the carbon footprint of health and care systems. However, their environmental impact has not been adequately investigated. Objective This scoping review aims to explore the environmental impact of DHTs, focusing on reducing their carbon footprint and evaluating methods for assessing that impact. Methods This scoping review followed the method outlined by Arksey and O’Malley, adhering to the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. The databases of MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies published in English with no time limitation. Search terms were categorized under three broader concepts: “Digital Health Technologies,” “Health and Care,” and “Carbon Footprint.” Studies were included based on screening titles and abstracts, followed by review of full-text papers by at least 2 reviewers. Narrative synthesis was used to report the findings. Results The database search yielded 4274 studies. Following screening and reference list checks, 70 studies were selected for inclusion. The earliest included study was published in 2007, with the majority originating from the United States (n=26) and the United Kingdom (n=12). Most studies assessed telemedicine or telehealth interventions. Retrospective analyses predominated, although prospective, cross-sectional, mixed method, and life cycle assessment (LCA) designs were also reported. Environmental impact was most often evaluated through travel-related carbon savings, with some studies incorporating energy use, medical equipment or resources, infrastructure, or waste. LCA studies applied process-based approaches that included detailed activity- and product-specific data, as well as Environmentally Extended Input-Output (EEIO) models. In most cases, carbon footprint measurements were based on assumptions, with calculations relying on published emission factors or calculators. Some studies have expressed CO ₂ emissions using emission equivalencies, such as equivalent carbon sequestration and equivalent CO ₂ emissions. Overall, DHTs demonstrated positive environmental impacts by reducing carbon footprint. However, negative impacts, especially electricity consumption and the lifecycle impacts of digital devices, were also noted. Conclusions DHTs are associated with reductions in carbon emissions and related environmental benefits, with telemedicine showing potential to lower the carbon footprint of the health care sector. However, evidence highlights the negative impacts associated with energy demand and the full lifecycle of digital devices. Given the substantial heterogeneity in assessment methods and outcome measures across studies, these findings should be interpreted with caution. To capture the true environmental implications of digital health, more rigorous, standardized, and comprehensive assessment methods are required. Bridging these methodological gaps is essential to ensure that DHTs not only support sustainable health care delivery but also make a meaningful contribution to mitigating global climate change.

• openalex https://doi.org/10.2196/88341first seen 2026-10-31 05:06:17 · last seen 2026-11-06 04:59:40