Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39425239›Full record

ArticlePerioperative medicine (London, England)2024

Health optimisation for patients with obesity before elective orthopaedic surgery: a qualitative study of professionals' views on restrictive approaches and future practice.

Joanna McLaughlin, Ruth Kipping, Hugh McLeod, Andrew Judge, Amanda Owen-Smith

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perioperative medicine (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Joanna McLaughlinBristol Medical School, Translational Health Sciences, Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Southmead Hospital, University of Bristol, Learning and Research Building, Level 1, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK. joanna.mclaughlin@bristol.ac.uk.
Ruth KippingBristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Hugh McLeodBristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Andrew JudgeBristol Medical School, Translational Health Sciences, Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Southmead Hospital, University of Bristol, Learning and Research Building, Level 1, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK.
Amanda Owen-SmithBristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPreoperative health optimisation for elective surgery entails supporting patients to improve their health in preparation for their treatment and recovery. While there is consensus that this process should address obesity, approaches vary across England. Despite guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to the contrary, restrictive approaches with body mass index thresholds for referral to arthroplasty are in use. This qualitative study aimed to investigate the views of professionals on the current use and future implications of these policies.

methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 professionals including clinicians, commissioners, policymakers, and health service managers, with experience of developing and/or implementing health optimisation policies for elective arthroplasty. Participants were sampled from areas in England with and without restrictive policies. We undertook thematic analysis of the interview data.

resultsParticipants described pre-surgical health optimisation as an important trigger for health improvement but identified current resourcing and inadequacies in provision of weight management support as significant barriers to success. Participants expressed concerns about the appropriateness and fairness of including obesity as a determinant to restrict access to surgery. They described short-term financial pressures underlying the use of restrictive body mass index thresholds and a lack of an evidence base, such that policies amounted to rationing and risked exacerbations of health inequalities. The study identified four priorities for improvements to future health optimisation practices: developing and implementing national guidance with flexibility for local variation, initiating patient engagement in primary care with onward integration across all services, improving resourcing to support effective equitable impact, and addressing wider determinants of obesity through societal change.

conclusionsOverall, participants had limited expectations of the impact of health optimisation policies on obesity without additional support, investment, and national guideline implementation. They raised strong concerns over current restrictive approaches. We conclude that addressing concerns around weight management support service availability and impacts on health inequalities is essential for shaping effective health optimisation policies. Future policy direction should support health optimisation to be offered early (ideally in primary care). Health optimisation interventions should be non-restrictive, inclusive, and well-monitored, particularly around equality impact.

Indexed as

ArthroplastyBody mass indexElective surgeryHealth optimisationObesityPolicyPre-operativeQualitativeWeight management

Identifiers

PMID39425239
PMCPMC11488359

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.