Principles of environmentally-sustainable anaesthesia: a global consensus statement from the World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists

The Earth’s mean surface temperature is already approximately 1.1°C higher than pre-industrial levels. Exceeding a mean 1.5°C rise by 2050 will make global adaptation to the consequences of climate change less possible. To protect public health, anaesthesia providers need to reduce the contribution their practice makes to global warming. We convened a Working Group of 45 anaesthesia providers with a recognised interest in sustainability, and used a three-stage modified Delphi consensus process to agree on principles of environmentally sustainable anaesthesia that are achievable worldwide. The Working Group agreed on the following three important underlying statements: patient safety should not be compromised by sustainable anaesthetic practices; high-, middle- and low-income countries should support each other appropriately in delivering sustainable healthcare (including anaesthesia); and healthcare systems should be mandated to reduce their contribution to global warming. We set out seven fundamental principles to guide anaesthesia providers in the move to environmentally sustainable practice, including: choice of medications and equipment; minimising waste and overuse of resources; and addressing environmental sustainability in anaesthetists’ education, research, quality improvement and local healthcare leadership activities. These changes are achievable with minimal material resource and financial investment, and should undergo re-evaluation and updates as better evidence is published. This paper discusses each principle individually, and directs readers towards further important references.     

Correction to: “Living with COVID”—implications for immunosuppressed and immunocompromised

Clinical Rheumatology -     

The association between income inequality and adult mental health at the subnational level—a systematic review

Purpose

A systematic review was undertaken to determine whether research supports: (i) an association between income inequality and adult mental health when measured at the subnational level, and if so, (ii) in a way that supports the Income Inequality Hypothesis (i.e. between higher inequality and poorer mental health) or the Mixed Neighbourhood Hypothesis (higher inequality and better mental health).

Methods

Systematic searches of PsycINFO, Medline and Web of Science databases were undertaken from database inception to September 2020. Included studies appeared in English-language, peer-reviewed journals and incorporated measure/s of objective income inequality and adult mental illness. Papers were excluded if they focused on highly specialised population samples. Study quality was assessed using a custom-developed tool and data synthesised using the vote-count method.

Results

Forty-two studies met criteria for inclusion representing nearly eight million participants and more than 110,000 geographical units. Of these, 54.76% supported the Income Inequality Hypothesis and 11.9% supported the Mixed Neighbourhood Hypothesis. This held for highest quality studies and after controlling for absolute deprivation. The results were consistent across mental health conditions, size of geographical units, and held for low/middle and high income countries.

Conclusions

A number of limitations in the literature were identified, including a lack of appropriate (multi-level) analyses and modelling of relevant confounders (deprivation) in many studies. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that area-level income inequality is associated with poorer mental health, and provides support for the introduction of social, economic and public health policies that ameliorate the deleterious effects of income inequality.

Clinical registration number

PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020181507.