ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Telemedicine reduces greenhouse gas emissions (CO2eq); however, results of studies vary extremely in dependence of the setting. This is the first study to focus on effects of telemedicine on CO2 imprint of primary care. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive retrospective study to analyze total CO2eq emissions of kilometers (km) saved by telemedical consultations. We categorized prevented and provoked patient journeys, including pharmacy visits. We calculated CO2eq emission savings through primary care telemedical consultations in comparison to those that would have occurred without telemedicine. We used the comprehensive footprint approach, including all telemedical cases and the CO2eq emissions by the telemedicine center infrastructure. In order to determine the net ratio of CO2eq emissions avoided by the telemedical center, we calculated the emissions associated with the provision of telemedical consultations (including also the total consumption of physicians' workstations) and subtracted them from the total of avoided CO2eq emissions. Furthermore, we also considered patient cases in our calculation that needed to have an in-person visit after the telemedical consultation. We calculated the savings taking into account the source of the consumed energy (renewable or not). RESULTS: 433 890 telemedical consultations overall helped save 1 800 391 km in travel. On average, 1 telemedical consultation saved 4.15 km of individual transport and consumed 0.15 kWh. We detected savings in almost every cluster of patients. After subtracting the CO2eq emissions caused by the telemedical center, the data reveal savings of 247.1 net tons of CO2eq emissions in total and of 0.57 kg CO2eq per telemedical consultation. The comprehensive footprint approach thus indicated a reduced footprint due to telemedicine in primary care. DISCUSSION: Integrating a telemedical center into the health care system reduces the CO2 footprint of primary care medicine; this is true even in a densely populated country with little use of cars like Switzerland. The insight of this study complements previous studies that focused on narrower aspects of telemedical consultations.
Subject(s)
Carbon Footprint , Telemedicine , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Carbon Dioxide , Primary Health CareABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Digital proximity-tracing apps have been deployed in multiple countries to assist with SARS-CoV-2 pandemic mitigation efforts. However, it is unclear how their performance and effectiveness were affected by changing pandemic contexts and new viral variants of concern. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to bridge these knowledge gaps through a countrywide digital proximity-tracing app effectiveness assessment, as guided by the World Health Organization/European Center for Prevention and Disease Control (WHO/ECDC) indicator framework to evaluate the public health effectiveness of digital proximity-tracing solutions. METHODS: We performed a descriptive analysis of the digital proximity-tracing app SwissCovid in Switzerland for 3 different periods where different SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (ie, Alpha, Delta, and Omicron, respectively) were most prevalent. In our study, we refer to the indicator framework for the evaluation of public health effectiveness of digital proximity-tracing apps of the WHO/ECDC. We applied this framework to compare the performance and effectiveness indicators of the SwissCovid app. RESULTS: Average daily registered SARS-CoV-2 case rates during our assessment period from January 25, 2021, to March 19, 2022, were 20 (Alpha), 54 (Delta), and 350 (Omicron) per 100,000 inhabitants. The percentages of overall entered authentication codes from positive tests into the SwissCovid app were 9.9% (20,273/204,741), 3.9% (14,372/365,846), and 4.6% (72,324/1,581,506) during the Alpha, Delta, and Omicron variant phases, respectively. Following receipt of an exposure notification from the SwissCovid app, 58% (37/64, Alpha), 44% (7/16, Delta), and 73% (27/37, Omicron) of app users sought testing or performed self-tests. Test positivity among these exposure-notified individuals was 19% (7/37) in the Alpha variant phase, 29% (2/7) in the Delta variant phase, and 41% (11/27) in the Omicron variant phase compared to 6.1% (228,103/3,755,205), 12% (413,685/3,443,364), and 41.7% (1,784,951/4,285,549) in the general population, respectively. In addition, 31% (20/64, Alpha), 19% (3/16, Delta), and 30% (11/37, Omicron) of exposure-notified app users reported receiving mandatory quarantine orders by manual contact tracing or through a recommendation by a health care professional. CONCLUSIONS: In constantly evolving pandemic contexts, the effectiveness of digital proximity-tracing apps in contributing to mitigating pandemic spread should be reviewed regularly and adapted based on changing requirements. The WHO/ECDC framework allowed us to assess relevant domains of digital proximity tracing in a holistic and systematic approach. Although the Swisscovid app mostly worked, as reasonably expected, our analysis revealed room for optimizations and further performance improvements. Future implementation of digital proximity-tracing apps should place more emphasis on social, psychological, and organizational aspects to reduce bottlenecks and facilitate their use in pandemic contexts.
