ArticleObesity science & practice2017
Health Professionals' perceptions of insurance coverage for weight loss services.
Article in Obesity science & practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Structural weight stigma in healthcare toward preconception, pregnant, and postpartum women: A systematic review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025Pooled it
- Health Services Delivery by Non-physicians and Associated Factors in Iran: A Cross-sectional Study in 2023.Archives of Iranian medicine · 2025Article
- Implementation of Clinical Services for Adults with Obesity in Different Health Systems: A Scoping Review and Causal Loop Diagram.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2025Review
- Maternal obesity: a serious pediatric health crisis.Pediatric research · 2018Article
- Health Professionals' perceptions of insurance coverage for weight loss services.Obesity science & practice · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To examine health professionals' (HPs) perceptions of top challenges and solutions in obesity care, and whether these perceptions differ by patient-panel income level. Methods: A 2014 national cross-sectional survey of HPs in nutrition, nursing, behavioural or mental health, exercise and pharmacy was analysed. The dependent variables were identification of insurance coverage for their services as a top (1) challenge or (2) solution for obesity care. The independent variable was self-reported income distribution of HPs' patient panels, which was dichotomized as 'lower-income' if 'mostly low income' or 'higher-income' if 'mostly not low income/evenly split between low-income and not low-income'. Multivariate logistic regression with survey weights was used. Results: Among 450 HPs, mean age was 44.9 years; 86% were women; 44% had lower-income panels. Overall, 25% of HPs endorsed insurance coverage as a current challenge, and 58% viewed improved coverage as a solution. HPs with lower and higher-income patient panels were similarly likely to identify coverage as a challenge (28% vs. 20%, p = 0.33) and benefits expansion as a solution (47% vs. 64%, p = 0.08). Conclusions: Most HPs perceive insurance coverage for their services to benefit patient weight loss. While the Affordable Care Act expands obesity counselling coverage to many lower-income patients, legislation increasing access to benefits for all patients regardless of insurance type may be beneficial.
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.