A Systematic Review and Bibliometric Analysis of Circular Economy Practices in the Healthcare Sector

James Campbell^*
*Correspondence: James Campbell, Department of Economics, University of Nanjing, Nanjing 210093, China, Email:

Keywords

Circular economy • Healthcare sector • Resource efficiency

Introduction

The global healthcare sector faces pressing sustainability challenges due to its significant consumption of resources and generation of waste. Traditional linear economic models, characterized by a take-make-dispose approach, exacerbate these issues, leading to resource depletion and environmental degradation. In response, the Circular Economy (CE) model has emerged as a transformative approach to promote sustainability. CE emphasizes the closed-loop system of resource use, focusing on reuse, recycling, and the reduction of waste. This study aims to systematically review and analyze the current state of CE practices in the healthcare sector through a bibliometric analysis, providing a detailed understanding of the adoption, benefits, and challenges of CE in healthcare.

The concept of a circular economy, initially developed in industrial and manufacturing contexts, has gradually extended to various sectors, including healthcare. CE principles in healthcare involve redesigning systems to reduce waste, extend product lifecycles, and improve resource efficiency. Key practices include sustainable procurement, waste reduction strategies, and the implementation of eco-friendly technologies. Scholars have highlighted the potential of CE to revolutionize healthcare by minimizing environmental impacts and fostering economic savings [1].

Literature Review

Healthcare facilities are significant contributors to environmental pollution due to their extensive use of single-use products, energy consumption, and waste generation. Traditional waste management strategies often fall short in addressing the complex waste streams generated by healthcare activities. The integration of CE principles offers a viable solution by promoting sustainable procurement, efficient resource use, and innovative waste management practices. However, the transition to CE in healthcare is fraught with challenges, including regulatory constraints, cost considerations, and the need for stakeholder engagement [2].

Research methodologies in the study of CE in healthcare encompass both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Case studies, surveys, and systematic reviews are commonly employed to explore the implementation and impact of CE practices. Bibliometric analysis, a quantitative method, has gained prominence in recent years, providing insights into publication trends, influential studies, and key themes in the literature. This study adopts a bibliometric approach to systematically analyze the body of knowledge on CE practices in healthcare [3].

Discussion

The adoption of CE practices in healthcare varies across different regions and healthcare systems. Developed countries have made significant strides in integrating CE principles, driven by stringent environmental regulations and advanced technological capabilities. Key practices include the reuse and recycling of medical devices, sustainable procurement policies, and the implementation of energy-efficient technologies. For instance, some hospitals have adopted green building standards, reducing energy consumption and improving indoor air quality. In contrast, developing countries face numerous barriers to CE adoption, including limited financial resources, inadequate infrastructure, and lack of regulatory support. Despite these challenges, there are notable examples of innovative CE practices in these regions, such as community-based waste management programs and the use of renewable energy sources in healthcare facilities. The dissemination of best practices and international collaborations are crucial for overcoming these barriers and promoting CE adoption globally [4].

The benefits of implementing CE practices in healthcare are manifold. Environmentally, CE reduces the ecological footprint of healthcare activities by minimizing waste and promoting resource efficiency. Economically, CE can lead to cost savings through reduced material consumption and waste disposal expenses. Additionally, CE practices can enhance the resilience of healthcare systems by ensuring a steady supply of essential resources and reducing dependence on volatile supply chains. From a social perspective, CE practices can improve public health outcomes by reducing pollution and exposure to hazardous materials. For example, the reduction of medical waste through sustainable disposal methods can mitigate the risk of disease transmission. Furthermore, the adoption of CE principles can foster innovation and drive the development of new technologies and business models, contributing to the overall advancement of the healthcare sector [5].

Despite its benefits, the implementation of CE in healthcare is not without challenges. Regulatory frameworks in many countries are still geared towards linear economic models, creating obstacles for the adoption of CE practices. Additionally, the high initial costs associated with transitioning to CE, such as investing in new technologies and training staff, can be prohibitive for many healthcare facilities. Another significant challenge is the complexity of healthcare waste streams, which include hazardous and non-hazardous materials. Effective CE implementation requires robust waste segregation and management systems, which can be difficult to establish and maintain. Moreover, the lack of awareness and understanding of CE principles among healthcare professionals can hinder adoption. Education and training programs are essential to build capacity and foster a culture of sustainability within the healthcare sector [6].

Conclusion

The transition to a circular economy in the healthcare sector offers a promising pathway to sustainability, with significant environmental, economic, and social benefits. However, realizing the full potential of CE requires concerted efforts to overcome regulatory, financial, and operational challenges. This systematic review and bibliometric analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of CE practices in healthcare, highlighting key trends, benefits, and barriers. Future research should focus on developing practical guidelines and strategies for CE implementation, fostering international collaborations, and promoting the integration of CE principles into healthcare policies and practices. By embracing CE, the healthcare sector can contribute to a more sustainable and resilient future.

Acknowledgement

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1. Mengist, Wondimagegn, Teshome Soromessa and Gudina Legese. "Method for conducting systematic literature review and meta-analysis for environmental science research." MethodsX 7 (2020): 100777.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Moher, David, Larissa Shamseer, Mike Clarke and Davina Ghersi, et al. "Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement." Sys Rev 4 (2015): 1-9.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Sittig, Dean F., Jodi D. Sherman, Matthew J. Eckelman and Andrew Draper, et al. "i-CLIMATE: A “clinical climate informatics” action framework to reduce environmental pollution from healthcare." J Americ Med Inform Associat 29 (2022): 2153-2160.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Ali, Mustafa and Yong Geng. "Accounting embodied economic potential of healthcare waste recycling—a case study from Pakistan." Environ Monitor Assess 190 (2018): 1-6.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Meissner, Markus, Sabrina Lichtnegger, Scott Gibson and Rhodri Saunders. "Evaluating the waste prevention potential of a multi-versus single-use surgical stapler." Risk Manag Healthcare Policy (2021): 3911-3921.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

6. van Straten, Bart, Brian Tantuo, Jenny Dankelman and Nicolaas H. Sperna Weiland, et al. "Reprocessing Zamak laryngoscope blades into new instrument parts; An ‘all-in-one’experimental study." Heliyon 8 (2022).

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at