Environmental sustainability of offloading care pathways for people with a diabetes-related foot ulcer: a life-cycle assessment

IF 10.4 1区 医学 Q1 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Jaap J. van Netten,Florine I. de Haes,Sicco A. Bus,Marieke E. Sijm-Eeken
{"title":"Environmental sustainability of offloading care pathways for people with a diabetes-related foot ulcer: a life-cycle assessment","authors":"Jaap J. van Netten,Florine I. de Haes,Sicco A. Bus,Marieke E. Sijm-Eeken","doi":"10.1007/s00125-026-06891-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Aims/hypothesis Insights into the environmental impact of diabetes care are scarce and are absent regarding treatments for diabetes-related foot disease. We aimed to compare the environmental impacts of three offloading pathways for people with a plantar foot ulcer. Methods We performed a bottom-up, process-based life-cycle assessment according to ISO standards. We defined three evidence-based offloading pathways from first visit to healing: total contact cast (TCC), non-removable walker and removable walker. Inventory data were collected for all activities within scope (materials, waste, transport, energy consumption). Life-cycle assessment was performed using ReCiPe-2016 midpoint and endpoint methods, employing SimaPro and Ecoinvent 3.10. Monte Carlo simulation with 1,000,000 individuals provided the environmental impact per offloading pathway. Results Environmental impact was lowest for the removable walker pathway and highest for the TCC for all 18 midpoints and five endpoints. For global warming, the mean impact was 141 kg CO 2 -equivalents (CO 2 -eq) (SD: 88; 95% prediction interval 67, 377) for the TCC pathway, 108 kg CO 2 -eq (SD: 62; 95% prediction interval 59, 276) for the non-removable walker and 90 kg CO 2 -eq (SD: 57; 95% prediction interval 36, 244) for the removable walker. The largest environmental impact came from patient transport (59–78% of all impact per pathway in CO 2 -eq). Conclusions/interpretation Diabetes-related plantar foot ulcer treatment pathways with a walker are likely to result in lower environmental impact compared with the TCC pathway, with the lowest impact for the removable walker pathway. This resulted from using a single device (i.e. no replacements required) and, for the removable walker, fewer visits, despite longer time to healing. Taking environmental impact into account may alter clinical decision-making in offloading treatment.","PeriodicalId":11164,"journal":{"name":"Diabetologia","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetologia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-026-06891-3","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Aims/hypothesis Insights into the environmental impact of diabetes care are scarce and are absent regarding treatments for diabetes-related foot disease. We aimed to compare the environmental impacts of three offloading pathways for people with a plantar foot ulcer. Methods We performed a bottom-up, process-based life-cycle assessment according to ISO standards. We defined three evidence-based offloading pathways from first visit to healing: total contact cast (TCC), non-removable walker and removable walker. Inventory data were collected for all activities within scope (materials, waste, transport, energy consumption). Life-cycle assessment was performed using ReCiPe-2016 midpoint and endpoint methods, employing SimaPro and Ecoinvent 3.10. Monte Carlo simulation with 1,000,000 individuals provided the environmental impact per offloading pathway. Results Environmental impact was lowest for the removable walker pathway and highest for the TCC for all 18 midpoints and five endpoints. For global warming, the mean impact was 141 kg CO 2 -equivalents (CO 2 -eq) (SD: 88; 95% prediction interval 67, 377) for the TCC pathway, 108 kg CO 2 -eq (SD: 62; 95% prediction interval 59, 276) for the non-removable walker and 90 kg CO 2 -eq (SD: 57; 95% prediction interval 36, 244) for the removable walker. The largest environmental impact came from patient transport (59–78% of all impact per pathway in CO 2 -eq). Conclusions/interpretation Diabetes-related plantar foot ulcer treatment pathways with a walker are likely to result in lower environmental impact compared with the TCC pathway, with the lowest impact for the removable walker pathway. This resulted from using a single device (i.e. no replacements required) and, for the removable walker, fewer visits, despite longer time to healing. Taking environmental impact into account may alter clinical decision-making in offloading treatment.
糖尿病相关足溃疡患者卸载护理路径的环境可持续性:生命周期评估
目的/假设对糖尿病护理的环境影响的了解很少,并且缺乏对糖尿病相关足病治疗的了解。我们的目的是比较三种卸载途径对足底足溃疡患者的环境影响。方法根据ISO标准进行自下而上、基于过程的生命周期评估。我们定义了从第一次就诊到愈合的三种循证卸载途径:全接触铸造(TCC)、不可移动助行器和可移动助行器。收集了范围内所有活动(材料、废物、运输、能源消耗)的库存数据。生命周期评估采用ReCiPe-2016中点和终点法,采用SimaPro和Ecoinvent 3.10。蒙特卡罗模拟提供了每条卸载路径对环境的影响。结果:在所有18个中点和5个终点,可移动助行器路径的环境影响最低,TCC的环境影响最高。对于全球变暖,TCC途径的平均影响为141 kg CO 2当量(CO 2 -eq) (SD: 88; 95%预测区间为67,377),不可移动步行者的平均影响为108 kg CO 2当量(SD: 62; 95%预测区间为59,276),可移动步行者的平均影响为90 kg CO 2当量(SD: 57; 95%预测区间为36,244)。最大的环境影响来自患者运输(占二氧化碳当量每条途径的所有影响的59-78%)。结论/解释与TCC途径相比,使用助步器治疗糖尿病相关足底溃疡的途径可能导致较低的环境影响,其中可移动助步器途径的影响最低。这是由于使用单一装置(即不需要更换),并且对于可移动的助行器,尽管愈合时间较长,但访问次数较少。考虑环境影响可能会改变卸载治疗的临床决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Diabetologia
Diabetologia 医学-内分泌学与代谢
CiteScore
18.10
自引率
2.40%
发文量
193
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Diabetologia, the authoritative journal dedicated to diabetes research, holds high visibility through society membership, libraries, and social media. As the official journal of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, it is ranked in the top quartile of the 2019 JCR Impact Factors in the Endocrinology & Metabolism category. The journal boasts dedicated and expert editorial teams committed to supporting authors throughout the peer review process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书