ArticleJAMA surgery2019
Patient Preferences for Bariatric Surgery: Findings From a Survey Using Discrete Choice Experiment Methodology.
Article in JAMA surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Evolving Landscape of Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- Important Continuous Glucose Monitoring Attributes for Patients With Type 2 Diabetes.Clinical diabetes : a publication of the American Diabetes Association · 2025Article
- Online Search Trends Related to Bariatric Surgery and Their Relationship with Utilization in Australia.Obesity surgery · 2024Article
- Investigating the Obesity Paradox in Colorectal Cancer: An Analysis of Prospectively Collected Data in a Diverse Cohort.Cancers · 2024Article
- Consent for Medical Treatment: What is 'Reasonable'?Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2024Article
- Outcomes of SADI and OAGB Compared to RYGB from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Quality Improvement Program: The North American Experience.Obesity surgery · 2024Article
- Obesity: a gender-view.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2024Review
- Third time's a charm: band to sleeve to bypass.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Patient and Healthcare Professional Preferences for Prescription Weight Loss Medications in Australia: Two Discrete Choice Experiments.Patient preference and adherence · 2024Article
- Quantifying weight loss program preferences of men working in trade and labor occupations: A discrete choice experiment.Obesity science & practice · 2023Article
- Polygenic Risk Prediction in Diverticulitis.Annals of surgery · 2023Article
- A Discrete Choice Analysis Comparing COVID-19 Vaccination Decisions for Children and Adults.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Disease Burden and Health Status among People with Severe Obesity Who Do Not Receive Bariatric Surgery: A Retrospective Study.Obesity facts · 2023Article
- Hospital Variation in Preference for a Specific Bariatric Procedure and the Association with Weight Loss Performance: a Nationwide Analysis.Obesity surgery · 2022Article
- Factors Influencing Preferences for Plastic Surgery Conferences: A Conjoint Analysis.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2022Article
- The Long-Term Association between Physical Activity and Weight Regain, Metabolic Risk Factors, Quality of Life and Sleep after Bariatric Surgery.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Observational
- Patient Preferences for Attributes of Health Canada Approved Weight Loss Medications Among Adults Living with Obesity in Canada: A Qualitative Study.Patient preference and adherence · 2022Article
- A Retrospective Evaluation of Pregnancy Outcomes Following Bariatric Surgery: A Single-Center Experience.Diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity : targets and therapy · 2022Article
- Sex/Gender Differences in Obesity Prevalence, Comorbidities, and Treatment.Current obesity reports · 2021Review
- Modelling Stakeholder Valuation: An Example Using the Surgical Treatments for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.Cureus · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Surgical options for weight loss vary considerably in risks and benefits, but the relative importance of procedure-associated characteristics in patient decision making is largely unknown. Objective: To identify patient preferences for risks, benefits, and other attributes of treatment options available to individuals who are candidates for bariatric surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This discrete choice experiment of weight loss procedures was performed as an internet-based survey administered to patients recruited from bariatric surgery information sessions in the State of Michigan. Each procedure was described by the following set of attributes: (1) treatment method, (2) recovery and reversibility, (3) time that treatment has been available, (4) expected weight loss, (5) effect on other medical conditions, (6) risk of complication, (7) adverse effects, (8) changes to diet, and (9) out-of-pocket costs. Participants chose between surgical profiles by comparing attributes. Survey data were collected from May 1, 2015, through January 30, 2016, and analyzed from February 1 to June 30, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated relative value of risks and benefits for leading weight-loss surgical options and marginal willingness to pay for procedure attributes. A latent class analysis identified respondent subgroups. Results: Among the 815 respondents (79.9% women; mean [SD] age, 44.5 [12.0] years), profiles of hypothetical procedures that included resolution of medical conditions (coefficient for full resolution, 0.229 [95% CI, 0.177 to 0.280; P < .001]; coefficient for no resolution, -0.207 [95% CI, -0.254 to -0.159; P < .001]), higher total weight loss (coefficient for each additional 20% loss, 0.185 [95% CI, 0.166 to 0.205; P < .001]), and lower out-of-pocket costs (coefficient for each additional $1000, -0.034 [95% CI, -0.042 to -0.025; P < .001]) were most likely to be selected. Younger respondents were more likely than older respondents to choose treatments with higher weight loss (coefficient for loss of 80% excess weight 0.543 [95% CI, 0.435-0.651] vs 0.397 [95% CI, 0.315-0.482]) and were more sensitive to out-of-pocket costs (coefficient for $100 out-of-pocket costs, 0.346 [95% CI, 0.221-0.470] vs 0.262 [95% CI, 0.174 to 0.350]; coefficient for $15 000 in out-of-pocket costs, -0.768 [95% CI, -0.938 to -0.598] vs -0.384 [95% CI, -0.500 to -0.268]). Marginal willingness to pay indicated respondents would pay $5470 for losing each additional 20% of excess body weight and $12 843 for resolution of existing medical conditions, the most desired procedure attributes. Latent class analysis identified the following 3 unobserved subgroups: cost-sensitive (most concerned with costs); benefit-focused (most concerned with excess weight loss and resolution of medical conditions); and procedure-focused (most concerned with how the treatment itself worked, including recovery and reversibility). Conclusions and Relevance: Candidates for bariatric surgery identified costs, expected weight loss, and resolution of medical conditions as the most important characteristics of weight loss surgery decisions. Other information, such as risk of complications and adverse effects, were important to patients but less so.
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.