BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2023
A comparison of the carbon footprint of alternative sampling approaches for cervical screening in the UK: A descriptive study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Whittaker Maya, Davies Jennifer C, Sargent Alexandra, Sawyer Matt, Crosbie Emma J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To understand whether self-sampling can reduce carbon emissions (CO2 e) from the NHS cervical screening programme (NHSCSP) by comparing the carbon footprint of three sampling strategies: routine cervical sampling, vaginal self-sampling and first-void (FV) urine collection.
DESIGN: Descriptive study.
SETTING: National Health Service (NHS), United Kingdom (UK).
POPULATION OR SAMPLE: Patients aged 25-64 years eligible for cervical screening in the UK.
METHODS: A carbon footprint analysis was undertaken for three cervical screening sampling approaches, from point of invitation to screening through to preparation for transport to the laboratory for HPV testing. A combination of primary and secondary data were used, with a bottom-up approach applied to collection of primary data.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We report CO2 e per sampling approach, which is the unit used to express carbon footprint and harmonise the contributions of greenhouse gases with different global warming potentials.
RESULTS: The total carbon footprint of routine cervical sampling is 3670 g CO2 e. By comparison, vaginal self-sampling had a total carbon footprint of 423 g CO2 e, and FV urine sampling 570 g CO2 e. The largest share of emissions for routine sampling was attributable to the carbon footprint associated with an appointment in a primary care setting, which totalled 2768 g CO2 e.
CONCLUSIONS: Routine cervical sampling is up to 8.7-fold more carbon-intensive than self-sampling approaches with equivalent effectiveness. We found negligible differences in the carbon footprint of alternative self-sampling methods, supporting the need for an informed choice of screening options for participants, which includes sharing information on their environmental impacts.
DESIGN: Descriptive study.
SETTING: National Health Service (NHS), United Kingdom (UK).
POPULATION OR SAMPLE: Patients aged 25-64 years eligible for cervical screening in the UK.
METHODS: A carbon footprint analysis was undertaken for three cervical screening sampling approaches, from point of invitation to screening through to preparation for transport to the laboratory for HPV testing. A combination of primary and secondary data were used, with a bottom-up approach applied to collection of primary data.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We report CO2 e per sampling approach, which is the unit used to express carbon footprint and harmonise the contributions of greenhouse gases with different global warming potentials.
RESULTS: The total carbon footprint of routine cervical sampling is 3670 g CO2 e. By comparison, vaginal self-sampling had a total carbon footprint of 423 g CO2 e, and FV urine sampling 570 g CO2 e. The largest share of emissions for routine sampling was attributable to the carbon footprint associated with an appointment in a primary care setting, which totalled 2768 g CO2 e.
CONCLUSIONS: Routine cervical sampling is up to 8.7-fold more carbon-intensive than self-sampling approaches with equivalent effectiveness. We found negligible differences in the carbon footprint of alternative self-sampling methods, supporting the need for an informed choice of screening options for participants, which includes sharing information on their environmental impacts.