ArticleFuture healthcare journal2023
A mixed-methods analysis of the climate impact, acceptability, feasibility and cost of switching from single-use pulp to reusable plastic trays in a large NHS trust.
Article in Future healthcare journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- The carbon footprints of single-use and reusable medical devices: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A large, multi-site NHS trust piloted switching from single-use pulp to reusable plastic trays for use in clinical care. This mixed-methods analysis combines quantitative cost-effectiveness and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions calculations with a stakeholder analysis and user survey to not only ascertain the cost and climate implications of this intervention, but to also better understand the use of trays across the trust to improve staff buy-in and, ultimately, the feasibility and success of the policy. We show that the plastic trays are both more cost-effective and climate friendly compared with the pulp trays, even using an annual replacement rate of 50% (higher than our anticipated rate of 5%), and that staff and key stakeholders would support the policy. Our analysis is one example of a larger trend in the return to reusable items, as awareness grows of the significant GHG emissions and waste produced from disposable, single-use items in healthcare.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.