ArticleBMJ open2015
Prioritising patients for bariatric surgery: building public preferences from a discrete choice experiment into public policy.
Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Using Latent Class Analysis to Model Preference Heterogeneity in Health: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2018Pooled it
- Prioritising patients for publicly funded bariatric surgery in Queensland, Australia.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2024Article
- Creating sustainable health care systems.Journal of health organization and management · 2019Article
- Recommendations from Two Citizens' Juries on the Surgical Management of Obesity.Obesity surgery · 2018Article
- The association between misperceptions around weight status and quality of life in adults in Australia.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2017Article
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo derive priority weights for access to bariatric surgery for obese adults, from the perspective of the public.
settingAustralian public hospital system.
participantsAdults (N=1994), reflecting the age and gender distribution of Queensland and South Australia. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: A discrete choice experiment in which respondents indicated which of two individuals with different characteristics should be prioritised for surgery in repeated hypothetical choices. Potential surgery recipients were described by seven key characteristics or attributes: body mass index (BMI), presence of comorbid conditions, age, family history, commitment to lifestyle change, time on the surgical wait list and chance of maintaining weight loss following surgery. A multinomial logit model was used to evaluate preferences and derive priority weights (primary analysis), with a latent class model used to explore respondent characteristics that were associated with variation in preference across the sample (see online supplementary analysis).
resultsA preference was observed to prioritise individuals who demonstrated a strong commitment to maintaining a healthy lifestyle as well as individuals categorised with very severe (BMI≥50 kg/m2) or (to a lesser extent) severe (BMI≥40 kg/m2) obesity, those who already have obesity-related comorbidity, with a family history of obesity, with a greater chance of maintaining weight loss or who had spent a longer time on the wait list. Lifestyle commitment was considered to be more than twice as important as any other criterion. There was little tendency to prioritise according to the age of the recipient. Respondent preferences were dependent on their BMI, previous experience with weight management surgery, current health state and education level.
conclusionsThis study extends our understanding of the publics' preferences for priority setting to the context of bariatric surgery, and derives priority weights that could be used to assist bodies responsible for commissioning bariatric services.
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.