scholarly journals The single-use rhinolaryngoscope: an evaluation and cost comparison

2020 ◽  
Vol 134 (9) ◽  
pp. 790-797
Author(s):  
R Mistry ◽  
R V Russell ◽  
N Walker ◽  
E Ofo
Keyword(s):  
Cost Comparison ◽  
Assessment Unit ◽  
Single Use ◽  
The Uk

AbstractBackgroundThis study investigated whether the single-use rhinolaryngoscope is clinically and economically comparable to the conventional reusable rhinolaryngoscope within a tertiary otolaryngology centre in the UK.MethodsA non-blinded, prospective and single-arm evaluation was carried out over a 5-day period, in which micro-costing was used to compare single-use rhinolaryngoscopes with reusable rhinolaryngoscopes.ResultsOverall, 68 per cent of the investigators perceived the single-use rhinolaryngoscope to be ‘good’ or ‘very good’, while 85 per cent believed the single-use rhinolaryngoscope could replace the reusable rhinolaryngoscope (n = 59). The incremental costs of reusable rhinolaryngoscope eyepieces and videoscopes in the out-patient clinic, when compared to single-use rhinolaryngoscopes, were £30 and £11, respectively. The incremental costs of reusable rhinolaryngoscope eyepieces and videoscopes in the acute surgical assessment unit, when compared to single-use rhinolaryngoscopes, were −£4 and −£73, respectively.ConclusionThe single-use rhinolaryngoscope provides a clinically comparable, and potentially cost-minimising, alternative to the reusable rhinolaryngoscope for use in the acute surgical assessment unit of our hospital.

scholarly journals The impact and effectiveness of the general public wearing masks to reduce the spread of pandemics in the UK: a multidisciplinary comparison of single-use masks versus reusable face masks.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ayse Lisa Allison ◽  
Esther Ambrose-Dempster ◽  
Teresa Domenech Aparsi ◽  
Maria Bawn ◽  
Miguel Casas Arredondo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Material Flow ◽  
Flow Analysis ◽  
Material Flow Analysis ◽  
Plastic Waste ◽  
Cost Comparison ◽  
Infection Rates ◽  
Behavioural Research ◽  
Single Use ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK government has mandated the use of face masks in various public settings and recommends the use of reusable masks to combat shortages of medically graded single-use masks in healthcare. To assist decision-making on the choice of masks for future pandemics, where shortages may not be a contributing factor, the UCL Plastic Waste Innovation Hub has carried out a multidisciplinary comparison between single-use and reusable masks based on their anatomy, standalone effectiveness, behavioural considerations, environmental impacts and costs. Although current single-use masks have a higher standalone effectiveness against bacteria and viruses, studies show that reusable masks have adequate performance in slowing infection rates of respiratory viruses. Material Flow Analysis, Life Cycle Assessment and cost comparison show that reusable masks have a lower environmental and economic impact than single-use masks. If every person in the UK uses one single-use mask each day for a year, it will create a total of 124,000 tonnes of waste, 66,000 tonnes of which would be unrecyclable contaminated plastic waste (the masks), with the rest being the recyclable packaging typically used for transportation and distribution of masks.Using reusable masks creates >85% less waste, generates 3.5 times lower impact on climate change and incurs 3.7 times lower costs. Further behavioural research is necessary to understand the extent and current practices of mask use; and how these practices affect mask effectiveness in reducing infection rates. Wearing single-use masks may be preferred over reusable masks due to perceptions of increased hygiene and convenience. Understanding behaviour towards the regular machine-washing of reusable masks for their effective reuse is key to maximise their public health benefits and minimise environmental and economic costs.

scholarly journals The impact and effectiveness of the general public wearing masks to reduce the spread of pandemics in the UK: a multidisciplinary comparison of single-use masks versus reusable face masks

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ayşe Lisa Allison ◽  
Esther Ambrose-Dempster ◽  
Maria Bawn ◽  
Miguel Casas Arredondo ◽  
Charnett Chau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Flow Analysis ◽  
Material Flow Analysis ◽  
Plastic Waste ◽  
Cost Comparison ◽  
Infection Rates ◽  
University College London ◽  
Single Use ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The University ◽  
The Impact

During the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the UK government mandated the use of face masks in various public settings and recommended the use of reusable masks to combat shortages of medically graded single-use masks in healthcare. To assist decision-making on the choice of masks for future pandemics, where shortages may not be a contributing factor, the University College London (UCL) Plastic Waste Innovation Hub has carried out a multidisciplinary comparison between single-use and reusable masks based on their anatomy, standalone effectiveness, behavioural considerations, environmental impact and costs. Although current single-use masks have a higher standalone effectiveness against bacteria and viruses, studies show that reusable masks have adequate performance in slowing infection rates of respiratory viruses. Material flow analysis (MFA), life cycle assessment (LCA) and cost comparison show that reusable masks have a lower environmental and economic impact than single-use masks. If every person in the UK uses one single-use mask each day for a year, it will create a total of 124,000 tonnes of waste, 66,000 tonnes of which would be unrecyclable contaminated plastic waste (the masks), with the rest being the recyclable packaging typically used for transportation and distribution of masks. Using reusable masks creates >85% less waste, generates 3.5 times lower impact on climate change and incurs 3.7 times lower costs. Further behavioural research is necessary to understand the extent and current practices of mask use; and how these practices affect mask effectiveness in reducing infection rates. Wearing single-use masks may be preferred over reusable masks due to perceptions of increased hygiene and convenience. Understanding behaviour towards the regular machine-washing of reusable masks for their effective reuse is key to maximise their public health benefits and minimise environmental and economic costs.

scholarly journals The impact and effectiveness of the general public wearing masks to reduce the spread of pandemics in the UK: a multidisciplinary comparison of single-use masks versus reusable face masks.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ayse Lisa Allison ◽  
Esther Ambrose-Dempster ◽  
Teresa Domenech Aparsi ◽  
Maria Bawn ◽  
Miguel Casas Arredondo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Material Flow ◽  
Flow Analysis ◽  
Material Flow Analysis ◽  
Plastic Waste ◽  
Cost Comparison ◽  
Infection Rates ◽  
Behavioural Research ◽  
Single Use ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the UK government has mandated the use of face masks in various public settings and recommends the use of reusable masks to combat shortages of medically graded single-use masks in healthcare. To assist decision-making on the choice of masks for future pandemics, where shortages may not be a contributing factor, the UCL Plastic Waste Innovation Hub has carried out a multidisciplinary comparison between single-use and reusable masks based on their anatomy, standalone effectiveness, behavioural considerations, environmental impacts and costs. Although current single-use masks have a higher standalone effectiveness against bacteria and viruses, studies show that reusable masks have adequate performance in slowing infection rates of respiratory viruses. Material Flow Analysis, Life Cycle Assessment and cost comparison show that reusable masks have a lower environmental and economic impact than single-use masks. If every person in the UK uses one single-use mask each day for a year, it will create a total waste of 124,000 tonnes, 66,000 tonnes of which would be unrecyclable contaminated plastic waste. Using reusable masks creates >85% less waste, generates 3.5 times lower impact on climate change and incurs 3.7 times lower costs. Further behavioural research is necessary to understand the extent and current practices of mask use, and its effectiveness in reducing infection rates. Wearing single-use masks may be preferred over reusable masks due to perceptions of increased hygiene and convenience. Understanding behaviour towards the regular machine-washing of reusable masks for their effective reuse is key to maximise their public health benefits and minimise environmental and economic costs.

scholarly journals Influences on single-use and reusable cup use: a multidisciplinary mixed-methods approach to designing interventions reducing plastic waste

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ayse Lisa Allison ◽  
Fabiana Lorencatto ◽  
Susan Michie ◽  
Mark Miodownik
Keyword(s):  
Behaviour Change ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Intervention Development ◽  
Theoretical Domains Framework ◽  
Intervention Strategies ◽  
Theoretical Understanding ◽  
Study Materials ◽  
Detailed Method ◽  
Single Use ◽  
The Uk

Background: An estimated 2.5-5 billion single-use coffee cups are disposed of annually in the UK, most of which consist of paper with a plastic lining. Due to the difficulty of recycling poly-coated material, most of these cups end up incinerated or put in landfills. As drinking (take-away) hot beverages is a behaviour, behaviour change interventions are necessary to reduce the environmental impacts of single-use coffee cup waste. Basing the design of interventions on a theoretical understanding of behaviour increases the transparency of the development process, the likelihood that the desired changes in behaviour will occur and the potential to synthesise findings across studies. Aim: The present paper presents a methodology for identifying influences on using single-use use and reusable cups as a basis for designing intervention strategies. Method and application: Two behaviour change frameworks: The Theoretical Domains Framework and the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behaviour model of behaviour, were used to develop an online survey and follow-up interviews. Research findings can inform the selection of intervention strategies using a third framework, the Behaviour Change Wheel. The application of the methodology is illustrated in relation to understanding barriers and enablers to single-use and reusable cup use across the setting of a London university campus. Conclusions: We have developed a detailed method for identifying behavioural influences relevant to pro-environmental behaviours, together with practical guidance for each step and a worked example. Benefits of this work include it providing guidance on developing study materials and collecting and analysing data. We offer this methodology to the intervention development and implementation community to assist in the application of behaviour change theory to interventions.

Abstract 207: Burden of Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) on Economic Cost. Comparison of Outcomes in US and Europe

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dalia Giedrimiene ◽  
Rachel King
Keyword(s):  
Heart Disease ◽  
Economic Cost ◽  
Epidemiological Data ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Cost Comparison ◽  
World Health ◽  
Productivity Costs ◽  
The Us ◽  
Lost Productivity ◽  
The Uk

CVD is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, responsible for nearly a third of all deaths. In US, 85.6 million Americans are living with CVD, including 15.5 million with coronary heart disease (CHD). Heart disease (HD) specifically is responsible for approximately one in every seven American deaths, taking 370,213 lives per year. Perhaps even more striking than CHD’s mortality is its preventability. The CDC estimates that 34% of deaths caused by HD could potentially be prevented with modifiable risk factors including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, smoking, poor diet, and sedentary lifestyle. By comparing the mortality of CVD and CHD in the US, Europe, and the United Kingdom (UK), we aim to gain a better understanding of the CVD burden and economic cost. Methods: We conducted a literature review of the most recent epidemiological data for US, Europe, and UK to compare mortality due to CVD and CHD between these three regions. Data sources for US include the AHA and CDC. Data for Europe was obtained from the European Society of Cardiology, following the World Health Organization’s definition of 53 states as the European region. The UK is included as it was considered independently in this study. Data for the UK was published by the British Heart Foundation. Results: The comparison of data shows that high mortality is evident in all represented countries and regions with a highest percent of CVD of total deaths in Europe as compared to US (45% vs 30.8%) and CHD (20% vs 14.2%). Very similar findings according annual mortality are evident comparing US to UK for CVD (30.8% vs 28%) and for CHD (14.2% vs 13%). The treatment for CVD is increasing over time, with prescriptions and operations costs around 6.8 billion in England, the majority spend on secondary care. CDC data in US show that Americans suffer 1.5 million heart attacks and strokes each year, which contributes more than $320 billion in annual healthcare costs and lost productivity. By 2030, this cost is projected to rise to $818 billion, while lost productivity costs to $275 billion. Conclusions: Although there is some variation between Europe as a group of 53 countries compared to the US and UK, it is clear that CVD has a major impact on mortality in all three regions studied. Improved prevention of CVD, including heart disease, has the potential to save lives around the globe and to reduce economic burden.

scholarly journals Single-Use Devices in Argentina: Cost Comparison Analysis of a “Re-Use” versus a “Single-Use” Policy for Trocars, Endocutters, Linear Cutters, and Harmonic Scalpels

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 89-95 ◽  
Author(s):  
Osvaldo Ulises Garay ◽  
Garcia Elorrio Ezequiel ◽  
Viviana Rodríguez ◽  
Cintia Spira ◽  
Federico Augustovski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Comparison ◽  
Comparison Analysis ◽  
Single Use ◽  
Cost Comparison Analysis

scholarly journals Incorporating Consumer Insights into the UK Food Packaging Supply Chain in the Transition to a Circular Economy

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (15) ◽  
pp. 6106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikki Clark ◽  
Rhoda Trimingham ◽  
Garrath T. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Circular Economy ◽  
Food Packaging ◽  
Consumer Behaviour ◽  
Development Process ◽  
Single Use ◽  
Essential Knowledge ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Packaged Food ◽  
The Cost

The growth of eating lunch purchased out of the home has led to an increased need for pre-packaged food-to-go products. Single-use plastic packaging is frequently chosen for its food safety and convenience attributes; however, the material format is under scrutiny due to concerns over economic waste and environmental impact. A circular economy could transform linear make-use-dispose supply chains into circular systems, ensuring the cycling of valuable plastic resources. However, there has been limited research into how consumers will behave within circular economic systems. Understanding consumer behaviour with packaging disposed out of the home could aid designers in developing solutions society will adopt in the transition to a circular economy. This study evaluates the application of behaviour research methods, and the behavioural insight outputs, with stakeholders from the UK food-to-go packaging supply chain. A novel co-design workshop and business origami technique allowed multiple stakeholder groups to collaboratively discuss, evaluate, and plan how consumer behaviour techniques could be used within their supply chain packaging development process. Although all stakeholders identified strengths in incorporating behaviour studies into the development process, providing essential knowledge feedback loops, barriers to their application include the cost and time to implement, plus the existing inconsistent UK waste infrastructure.

Cost Comparison of Reusable and Single-Use Ultrasonic Shears for Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery

2008 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 512-518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elliot Yung ◽  
Michel Gagner ◽  
Alfons Pomp ◽  
Gregory Dakin ◽  
Luca Milone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bariatric Surgery ◽  
Cost Comparison ◽  
Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery ◽  
Ultrasonic Shears ◽  
Single Use
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document