ArticleObesity surgery2026
Weighed Down by Paperwork: Identifying Barriers to Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Evaluation in the United States.
Article in Obesity surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObesity affects over 42% of U.S. adults, yet access to metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) remains limited despite its proven efficacy. While use of GLP-1 receptor agonists has risen in the past three years, MBS volume has declined over 25% during the same period. Reported barriers to MBS include long wait times, societal sigma, fear of surgery, and insurance restrictions. This study investigated appointment accessibility and program requirements for patients seeking MBS.
methodsWe conducted a secret shopper study of bariatric surgery centers in North Carolina (n=18) and South Carolina (n=17) June - August 2025. Trained callers contacted each program twice, once posing as a patient with Medicaid and once as a patient with private insurance, to request an initial consultation appointment. Data collected included appointment wait times, required documentation, pre-surgical prerequisites, and administrative barriers.
resultsOf the 24 centers successfully contacted, all accepted private insurance and 94.3% accepted Medicaid. Median wait time to appointment was 20 days, with no difference by insurance type. On average, programs required 1.7 calls before reaching a scheduler. Most centers (77.1%,n=27) required pre-appointment steps such as an online application, seminar, or PCP referral. Eleven centers could not be reached due to incorrect contact information, and two offered only online intake forms.
conclusionsRather than insurance-related disparities, we found that administrative barriers such as repeated call attempts, inaccurate contact information, and variable prerequisites were the main obstacles to MBS access. The lack of standardization across programs highlights the need to streamline the evaluation process.
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.