Colon capsule endoscopy is not yet green: patient-travel carbon costs of CCE versus colonoscopy in rural Scotland

Objective Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer death in the UK, with colonoscopy as the gold standard test used for diagnosis. However, colonoscopy is resource-intensive and environmentally impactful. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) offers a non-invasive alternative, potentially reducing environmental burdens by reducing the need for sedation, non-reusable plastics and patient travel. CCE’s sustainability remains underevaluated but could dramatically reduce carbon emissions. This study aimed to compare the carbon impact of patient travel for CCE compared with colonoscopy in a rural health board. Methods Prospectively collected data were analysed from 233 CCE and 234 colonoscopy patients, respectively, from a single rural health board between May and September 2023. Distances travelled for procedures were calculated using Google Maps, considering standard petrol car emissions. Hypothetical scenarios were examined to model a reduction in travel for patients undergoing CCE, considering postal delivery and returns of equipment. Statistical analysis with Mann-Whitney tests compared travel distances and carbon emissions between cohorts. Results Currently in a rural health board, patients undergoing CCE travel more than those who have a colonoscopy. Of the former, over half require follow-up investigations. By introducing a transport delivery service for CCE and its equipment, patient travel distance is reduced but not enough to have a statistically significant effect. Conclusion The current CCE pathway in a rural health board results in greater carbon production, caused by travel, compared with colonoscopy. The requirement for follow-up procedures results in considerably higher travel distances. To introduce CCE as a less environmentally impactful investigation in the gastrointestinal diagnostics pathway, a reduction in follow-up procedures and therefore less patient travel is imperative. A scenario using transport delivery services allowing at-home diagnostics goes some way to negate this.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Frontline Gastroenterology
Published
2025-11-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/flgastro-2025-103184
Primary Topic
Climate Change and Health Impacts
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Colon capsule endoscopy is not yet green: patient-travel carbon costs of CCE versus colonoscopy in rural Scotland

Angus Watson, Susan Walker, Kimberley Barker, Ruari Jardine
Frontline Gastroenterology
Climate Change and Health Impacts
article

Colon capsule endoscopy is not yet green: patient-travel carbon costs of CCE versus colonoscopy in rural Scotland

Angus Watson, Susan Walker, Kimberley Barker, Ruari Jardine
article en

Abstract

Objective Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer death in the UK, with colonoscopy as the gold standard test used for diagnosis. However, colonoscopy is resource-intensive and environmentally impactful. Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) offers a non-invasive alternative, potentially reducing environmental burdens by reducing the need for sedation, non-reusable plastics and patient travel. CCE’s sustainability remains underevaluated but could dramatically reduce carbon emissions. This study aimed to compare the carbon impact of patient travel for CCE compared with colonoscopy in a rural health board. Methods Prospectively collected data were analysed from 233 CCE and 234 colonoscopy patients, respectively, from a single rural health board between May and September 2023. Distances travelled for procedures were calculated using Google Maps, considering standard petrol car emissions. Hypothetical scenarios were examined to model a reduction in travel for patients undergoing CCE, considering postal delivery and returns of equipment. Statistical analysis with Mann-Whitney tests compared travel distances and carbon emissions between cohorts. Results Currently in a rural health board, patients undergoing CCE travel more than those who have a colonoscopy. Of the former, over half require follow-up investigations. By introducing a transport delivery service for CCE and its equipment, patient travel distance is reduced but not enough to have a statistically significant effect. Conclusion The current CCE pathway in a rural health board results in greater carbon production, caused by travel, compared with colonoscopy. The requirement for follow-up procedures results in considerably higher travel distances. To introduce CCE as a less environmentally impactful investigation in the gastrointestinal diagnostics pathway, a reduction in follow-up procedures and therefore less patient travel is imperative. A scenario using transport delivery services allowing at-home diagnostics goes some way to negate this.

Frontline Gastroenterology
University of Aberdeen (GB), NHS Highland (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 57%
Climate Change and Health Impacts
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.