Search

Objective: To understand whether self‐sampling can reduce carbon emissions (CO2e) 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 CO2e 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 CO2e. By comparison, vaginal self‐sampling had a total carbon footprint of 423 g CO2e, and FV urine sampling 570 g CO2e. 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 CO2e. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Globally, the incidence of twin pregnancies is rising owing to the use of assisted reproductive technologies (ART), emigration and deferment of pregnancy until advanced maternal age (AMA). While twin pregnancies have higher absolute risks of adverse outcomes, including miscarriage, stillbirth, neonatal death and preterm delivery, the impact of specific exposures and risk factors related to these outcomes may differ between twin pregnancies and singleton pregnancies. Regarding modifiable factors, data are sometimes based on evidence extrapolated from singleton or whole obstetric populations. Therefore, targeted evidence is required to provide care tailored to twin pregnancies to prevent adverse outcomes. We aimed to comprehensively review the association between different risk factors and adverse outcomes in twin pregnancies, including data on chorionicity, and to compare these to singletons. This review examines the risks associated with chorionicity, AMA, body mass index (BMI), socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities, maternal smoking, use of ART, maternal perception of fetal movement, and maternal comorbidities, including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Adverse outcomes reported were preterm birth, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), stillbirth and neonatal mortality. As such, fetal mortality and morbidity will be under-represented, as pregnancy loss before 22–24 weeks is omitted. Monochorionicity increases the risk of stillbirth, NICU admission, and preterm delivery in twin pregnancy. AMA predisposes twin pregnancies to higher risks of mortality, admission to the NICU, and preterm birth than singleton pregnancies do. Conversely, the impact of BMI, socioeconomic inequalities, smoking, ART, and HDP on adverse outcomes appears to be lower in twin pregnancies than in singleton pregnancies. This attenuation might be explained by the higher baseline risk of adverse outcomes such as preterm birth in twin pregnancies. Some exposures, such as ART use and GDM, appear to be "protective" against perinatal mortality in twin pregnancies, despite being established risk factors for adverse outcomes in singleton pregnancies, potentially related to access to specialist care. There is a paucity of evidence available to counsel mothers of twin pregnancies regarding reduced fetal movement. Overall, the risk factors for adverse pregnancy outcomes differ between twin and singleton pregnancies. This highlights the need for further studies to examine the association between risk factors and adverse outcomes in twin pregnancies. The resulting data would facilitate tailored guidance for twin pregnancies, contribute to improved antenatal care, and inform wider public health strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]