International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health | An Interview with One of the Authors—Dr. Ifeoluwa Osinkolu
Name: Dr. Ifeoluwa Osinkolu
Affiliations: Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea SA2 8PP, Wales, UK
“The Environmental Consequence of Early Colorectal Cancer Detection: A Literature Review of the Environmental Impact Assessment of Colorectal Cancer Diagnostic Pathways”
by Ifeoluwa Osinkolu, Arron Lacey and Dean Harris
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2025, 22(11), 1649; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph22111649
Available online: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/22/11/1649
1. Congratulations on your recent publication! Could you briefly introduce yourself and your current research focus?
My name is Ifeoluwa Osinkolu. I am a medical doctor currently completing my residency in general surgery in Wales, UK. Alongside my clinical work, I have a strong interest in sustainability within healthcare. I’m now on an academic sabbatical at Swansea University, where I work with a research group using Raman spectroscopy to analyse blood samples for cancer diagnosis. My role focuses on evaluating the environmental impact of integrating such diagnostics into existing clinical pathways. My earlier experience as a sustainability fellow in Health Education and Improvement Wales also shaped my interest in environmental reform within the healthcare system.
2. Emerging blood-based biomarkers are seen as the future of cancer detection. How should we evaluate their environmental impact before they become routine, and what factors matter most?
To evaluate their environmental impact, we should avoid looking at the test in isolation. A blood test exists within a clinical pathway. If we only assess the test itself, we miss the larger picture. For instance, introducing a blood test for cancer detection may seem sustainable, but if patients must travel further to access the test, the environmental impact of travel can outweigh the benefits. My work shows that patient travel is often the largest contributor to environmental impact in diagnostic pathways. The key is understanding where the test fits within the pathway, then modeling different implementation scenarios to determine which placements maximize clinical benefit while minimizing environmental cost. Sustainability in healthcare is still a developing field, and methodologies vary widely, which adds complexity.
3. Your research touches on the tension between clinical efficacy and environmental goals. How can we balance the need for accurate diagnostics with the urgency of reducing healthcare’s carbon footprint?
It starts with having reliable environmental data. Without accurate information, decision-makers cannot evaluate trade-offs. In the UK, most assessments rely on carbon-centric models based on economic proxies, which introduce uncertainty. Despite this, one consistent pattern emerges: improving clinical efficiency tends to improve environmental efficiency as well. When pathways become more streamlined—fewer delays, fewer unnecessary steps—the environmental footprint decreases. However, every healthcare system operates under different constraints, so solutions must be context specific. My role is to provide environmental data that can support informed decision-making.
4. Can you share a surprising or unexpected finding from your research?
The biggest surprise was how dominant patient travel is in environmental impact assessments. I initially assumed that single-use consumables or equipment would account for more. Another unexpected finding is the lack of standardization in environmental impact methodologies in healthcare. Different studies use different metrics and approaches, making comparisons difficult. Also, most research focuses on individual technologies rather than full pathways, but it’s the pathway that reveals true opportunities for improvement.
5. What is the most important message you hope policymakers take away from your research?
Efficiency matters. Reducing system-level waste, whether administrative, procedural, or logistical, can improve environmental outcomes, sometimes more effectively than increasing resources. Though I am still developing the conclusions of my research, efficiency appears to be a central theme. The motivation began in the operating theatre. I regularly noticed how much waste we produced, and it made me curious. I started learning more about sustainability in healthcare, which led me deeper into the field. Eventually, I found a way to combine my clinical interests in general and colorectal surgery with my interest in environmental work. This academic opportunity came at the right moment, and I decided to pursue it.
6. What motivated you to choose the IJERPH journal for your submission? And how would you rate the submission process in terms of ease of use, clarity of guidelines, and the technical platform?
Many of the papers I referenced during my research were published in IJERPH, and the journal’s interdisciplinary scope aligned very well with my topic. I found the submission process clear, the communication responsive, and the reviewer feedback constructive. Whenever I needed additional time or had questions, the team was accommodating. Overall, it was an excellent experience.