Managing the environmental impact of research

The environmental impact of research increasingly needs to be taken into account in design and execution. This makes good financial sense. However, it is especially in the research world as one of the key reasons for doing health research is to improve our knowledge to improve health. Specifically, doing research in a more sustainable way allows us to generate more knowledge with the same resource. Research not only needs to be done increasingly sustainably, but the content of the research needs to direct how we promote health and deliver healthcare in more sustainable ways

Does global progress on sanitation really lag behind water? An analysis of global progress on community- and household-level access to safe water and sanitation.

Safe drinking water and sanitation are important determinants of human health and wellbeing and have recently been declared human rights by the international community. Increased access to both were included in the Millennium Development Goals under a single dedicated target for 2015. This target was reached in 2010 for water but sanitation will fall short; however, there is an important difference in the benchmarks used for assessing global access. For drinking water the benchmark is community-level access whilst for sanitation it is household-level access, so a pit latrine shared between households does not count toward the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target. We estimated global progress for water and sanitation under two scenarios: with equivalent household- and community-level benchmarks. Our results demonstrate that the "sanitation deficit" is apparent only when household-level sanitation access is contrasted with community-level water access. When equivalent benchmarks are used for water and sanitation, the global deficit is as great for water as it is for sanitation, and sanitation progress in the MDG-period (1990-2015) outstrips that in water. As both drinking water and sanitation access yield greater benefits at the household-level than at the community-level, we conclude that any post-2015 goals should consider a household-level benchmark for both

Reducing the environmental impact of trials: a comparison of the carbon footprint of the CRASH-1 and CRASH-2 clinical trials

BACKGROUND: All sectors of the economy, including the health research sector, must reduce their carbon emissions. The UK National Institute for Health Research has recently prepared guidelines on how to minimize the carbon footprint of research. We compare the carbon emissions from two international clinical trials in order to identify where emissions reductions can be made. METHODS: We conducted a carbon audit of two clinical trials (the CRASH-1 and CRASH-2 trials), quantifying the carbon dioxide emissions produced over a one-year audit period. Carbon emissions arising from the coordination centre, freight delivery, trial-related travel and commuting were calculated and compared. RESULTS: The total emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents during the one-year audit period were 181.3 tonnes for CRASH-1 and 108.2 tonnes for CRASH-2. In total, CRASH-1 emitted 924.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents compared with 508.5 tonnes for CRASH-2. The CRASH-1 trial recruited 10,008 patients over 5.1 years, corresponding to 92 kg of carbon dioxide per randomized patient. The CRASH-2 trial recruited 20,211 patients over 4.7 years, corresponding to 25 kg of carbon dioxide per randomized patient. The largest contributor to emissions in CRASH-1 was freight delivery of trial materials (86.0 tonnes, 48% of total emissions), whereas the largest contributor in CRASH-2 was energy use by the trial coordination centre (54.6 tonnes, 30% of total emissions). CONCLUSIONS: Faster patient recruitment in the CRASH-2 trial largely accounted for its greatly increased carbon efficiency in terms of emissions per randomized patient. Lighter trial materials and web-based data entry also contributed to the overall lower carbon emissions in CRASH-2 as compared to CRASH-1. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: CRASH-1: ISRCTN74459797CRASH-2: ISRCTN86750102

Vaccination coverage and factors associated with adherence to the vaccination schedule in young children of a rural area in Burkina Faso

Background: Vaccination is an important tool for reducing infectious disease morbidity and mortality. In the past, less than 80% of children 12–23 months of age were fully immunized in Burkina Faso. Objectives: To describe coverage and assess factors associated with adherence to the vaccination schedule in rural area Burkina Faso. Methods: The study population was extracted from the Nouna Health and Demographic surveillance system cohort. Data from four rounds of interviews conducted between November 2012 and June 2014 were considered. This study included 4016 children aged 12–23 months. We assessed the effects of several background factors, including sex, factors reflecting access to health care (residence, place of birth), and maternal factors (age, education, marital status), on being fully immunized defined as having received Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG), three doses of diphtheria–tetanus–pertussis and oral polio vaccine, and measles vaccine by 12 months of age. The associations were studied using binomial regression to derive prevalence ratios (PRs) in univariate and multivariate regression models. Results: The full vaccination coverage increased significantly over time (72% in 2012, 79% in 2013, and 81% in 2014, p = 0.003), and the coverage was significantly lower in urban than in rural areas (PR 0.84; 0.80–0.89). Vaccination coverage was neither influenced by sex nor influenced by place of birth or by maternal factors. Conclusion: The study documented a further improvement in full vaccination coverage in Burkina Faso in recent years and better vaccination coverage in rural than in urban areas. The organization of healthcare systems with systematic outreach activities in the rural areas may explain the difference between rural and urban areas

Predicting intracranial hemorrhage after traumatic brain injury in low and middle-income countries: A prognostic model based on a large, multi-center, international cohort

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Traumatic brain injury (TBI) affects approximately 10 million people annually, of which intracranial hemorrhage is a devastating sequelae, occurring in one-third to half of cases. Patients in low and middle-income countries (LMIC) are twice as likely to die following TBI as compared to those in high-income countries. Diagnostic capabilities and treatment options for intracranial hemorrhage are limited in LMIC as there are fewer computed tomography (CT) scanners and neurosurgeons per patient as in high-income countries.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The Medical Research Council CRASH-1 trial was utilized to build this model. The study cohort included all patients from LMIC who received a CT scan of the brain (n = 5669). Prognostic variables investigated included age, sex, time from injury to randomization, pupil reactivity, cause of injury, seizure and the presence of major extracranial injury.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were five predictors that were included in the final model; age, Glasgow Coma Scale, pupil reactivity, the presence of a major extracranial injury and time from injury to presentation. The model demonstrated good discrimination and excellent calibration (c-statistic 0.71). A simplified risk score was created for clinical settings to estimate the percentage risk of intracranial hemorrhage among TBI patients.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Simple prognostic models can be used in LMIC to estimate the risk of intracranial hemorrhage among TBI patients. Combined with clinical judgment this may facilitate risk stratification, rapid transfer to higher levels of care and treatment in resource-poor settings.</p