ArticleObesity surgery2016
Review of Publicly-Funded Bariatric Surgery Policy in Australia-Lessons for More Comprehensive Policy Making.
Article in Obesity surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Same-Day Discharge Metabolic-Bariatric Surgery in Australia: Experience in a Regional Public Hospital.ANZ journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Developing a Decision Aid for Clinical Obesity Services in the Real World: the DACOS Nationwide Pilot Study.Obesity surgery · 2024Article
- Health outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes following bariatric surgery: Results from a publicly funded initiative.PloS one · 2023Article
- An Exploratory Study: A Head-to-Head Comparison of the EQ-5D-5L and AQoL-8D for Long-Term Publicly Waitlisted Bariatric Surgery Patients Before and 3 Months After Bariatric Surgery.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2018Article
- Perioperative Mortality Following Bariatric Surgery in Australia.Obesity surgery · 2018Article
- A Pre-Hospital Patient Education Program Improves Outcomes of Bariatric Surgery.Obesity surgery · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of the study was to determine the level of guidance provided by or to government health departments across different regions of Australia on publicly funded bariatric surgery.
methodsBariatric surgery policies and guidelines were sought from each Australian state (n = 6) and territory (n = 2) government health department and compared in relation to their origins, level of guidance on patient eligibility and priority, as well as recommendations for patient care, including follow-up surgical services. Comparison with national guidelines on bariatric surgery from Australia, the UK and USA was also made.
resultsFive of the eight states and territories had policies or guidelines informing practice. There was little uniformity among regional guidelines and variable consistency with national guidelines (e.g., defining obesity related comorbidity). Recommendations differed on patient eligibility, and none of the state documents mentioned re-operative bariatric or body-contouring surgery. There was limited guidance on prioritisation of eligible patients and gastric banding adjustments. Pre- and post-surgical multidisciplinary care was generally recommended.
conclusionsPolicies and guidelines on publicly funded bariatric surgery are highly variable across Australia and at times inconsistent with national guidelines. Insufficient guidance exists regarding the prioritisation of eligible patients and follow-up surgical services. These findings have implications for policy, research and practice and are particularly important in health service environments with resource constraints and inequitable patient access to services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26227395What 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.