Brought to you by Erasmo Cadena Martinez, Naomi Muindi, Lieselot Boone, and Jo Dewulf from Ghent University alongside Wouter De Soete, and Kenneth Robertshaw from Johnson&Johnson MedTech

EHDs are transforming healthcare by improving service delivery and enhancing patient outcomes. From wearable sensors to diagnostic tools, these devices have brought significant benefits to the quality of care. However, these advances have come at an environmental cost that is not yet well understood. How can we ensure that the environmental impacts of these devices are properly evaluated and addressed? 

Critical review by Ghent University

A critical review recently conducted by Ghent University addresses this question. The study examined current scientific literature on the environmental impacts of EHDs using quantitative assessment methodologies (i.e., life cycle assessment (LCA) or footprint method). It identified a range of challenges and inconsistencies that hinder the ability to fully understand and mitigate the environmental burdens of these devices. 

Findings

One of the main findings is the lack of methodological consistency among existing studies. Variations in the definition of functional units, the establishment of system boundaries and the interpretation of results make it difficult to compare results, even for devices with similar functions. Additionally, most studies focus only on the direct environmental impacts of the devices, such as emissions from production and disposal. Indirect impacts, such as those arising from improved healthcare outcomes or reduced hospital stays enabled by these devices, are often overlooked. 

The review emphasises that the added value of EHDs lies not just in their physical components but in the healthcare benefits they deliver. For instance, consider a wearable health monitor designed to detect irregular heart rhythms in patients. By enabling early detection and treatment, the device can reduce the need for more invasive procedures, decrease hospital admissions, and shorten recovery times. These indirect effects, though harder to quantify, significantly contribute to reducing the overall environmental burden of healthcare systems. Ignoring these impacts provides an incomplete picture of the device’s sustainability. 

Challenges

Expanding the scope of LCA studies to include both direct and indirect impacts is essential for a comprehensive evaluation. However, implementing such comprehensive assessments presents its own challenges. Expanding system boundaries requires more extensive data collection, often with higher levels of uncertainty. Moreover, the lack of primary data for many EHDs further complicates the task of building reliable lifecycle inventories.  

Need for a harmonised methodology  

To address these issues, the study stresses the need for an harmonised methodology to ensure consistency and comparability of studies. Establishing commonly accepted guidelines would make it easier to evaluate the environmental impacts of EHDs and compare results across different devices. As the healthcare sector transitions toward circular and sustainable designs for EHDs, these approaches will be critical for guiding innovation. 

With growing interest in reducing health e-waste and developing environmentally friendly EHDs, these insights are timely and critical. By applying the recommendations from this review, future research can help shape more comprehensive and reliable sustainability assessments, guiding the healthcare sector toward greener innovations.