Observational studyBMC health services research2019
A predictive model for non-completion of an intensive specialist obesity service in a public hospital: a case-control study.
Observational study in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Consolidating International Care Models and Clinical Services for Adult Obesity.Current obesity reports · 2025Review
- 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
- Predictors of ongoing attendance at an Australian publicly funded specialist obesity service.Obesity science & practice · 2024Article
- No medication prescription and residential distance from the hospital are important factors associated with nonsurgical weight-loss treatment discontinuance in Japanese patients with high-degree obesity: a retrospective study.BMC health services research · 2024Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the growing evidence base supporting intensive lifestyle and medical treatments for severe obesity, patient engagement in specialist obesity services is difficult to achieve and poorly understood. To address this knowledge gap, we aimed to develop a model for predicting non-completion of a specialist multidisciplinary service for clinically severe obesity, termed the Metabolic Rehabilitation Programme (MRP).
methodUsing a case-control study design in a public hospital setting, we extracted data from medical records for all eligible patients with a body mass index (BMI) of ≥35 kg/m
resultsOut of the 219 eligible patient records, 78 (35.6%) non-completion cases were identified. Significant differences between non-completers versus completers were: age (47.1 versus 54.5 years, p < 0.001); residential distance from the clinic (21.8 versus 17.1 km, p = 0.018); obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) (42.9% versus 56.7%, p = 0.050) and CPAP therapy (11.7% versus 28.4%, p = 0.005). The probability of non-completion could be independently associated with age, residential distance, and either OSA or CPAP. There was no statistically significant difference in performance between the alternate models (69.5% versus 66.4%, p = 0.57).
conclusionsNon-completion of intensive specialist obesity management services is most common among younger patients, with fewer complex care needs, and those living further away from the clinic. Clinicians should be aware of these potential risk factors for dropping out early when managing outpatients with severe obesity, whereas policy makers might consider strategies for increasing access to specialist obesity management 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.