التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
| العنوان: |
Environmental sustainability in obstetrics and gynaecology: A systematic review. |
| المؤلفون: |
Cohen, Eva Sayone, Kouwenberg, Lisanne H. J. A., Moody, Kate S., Sperna Weiland, Nicolaas H., Kringos, Dionne Sofia, Timmermans, Anne, Hehenkamp, Wouter J. K. |
| المصدر: |
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology; Apr2024, Vol. 131 Issue 5, p555-567, 13p |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: |
SUSTAINABILITY, GREENHOUSE gases, GYNECOLOGY, ADOLESCENT gynecology, OBSTETRICS, ECOLOGICAL impact |
| مستخلص: |
Background: The healthcare sector is responsible for 4%–10% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Considering the broad range of care that obstetricians and gynaecologists provide, mitigation strategies within this specialty could result in significant reductions of the environmental footprint across the whole healthcare industry. Objectives: The aim of this review was to identify for what services, procedures and products within obstetric and gynaecological care the environmental impact has been studied, to assess the magnitude of such impact and to identify mitigation strategies to diminish it. Search strategy: The search strategy combined terms related to environmental impact, sustainability, climate change or carbon footprint, with the field of obstetrics and gynaecology. Selection criteria: Articles reporting on the environmental impact of any service, procedure or product within the field of obstetrics and gynaecology were included. Included outcomes covered midpoint impact categories, CO2 emissions, waste generation and energy consumption. Data collection and analysis: A systematic literature search was conducted in the databases of MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and Scopus, and a grey literature search was performed on Google Scholar and two websites of gynaecological associations. Main results: The scope of the investigated studies encompassed vaginal births, obstetric and gynaecological surgical procedures, menstrual products, vaginal specula and transportation to gynaecological oncologic consultations. Among the highest yielding mitigation strategies were displacing disposable with reusable materials and minimising content of surgical custom packs. The lowest yielding mitigation strategy was waste optimisation, including recycling. Conclusions: This systematic review highlights opportunities for obstetricians and gynaecologists to decrease their environmental footprint in many ways. More high‐quality studies are needed to investigate the environmental impact of other aspects of women's and reproductive health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| قاعدة البيانات: |
Complementary Index |
Full Text Finder