↓ Skip to main content

Prioritising patients for bariatric surgery: building public preferences from a discrete choice experiment into public policy

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Open, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prioritising patients for bariatric surgery: building public preferences from a discrete choice experiment into public policy
Published in
BMJ Open, October 2015
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008919
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer A Whitty, Julie Ratcliffe, Elizabeth Kendall, Paul Burton, Andrew Wilson, Peter Littlejohns, Paul Harris, Rachael Krinks, Paul A Scuffham

Abstract

To derive priority weights for access to bariatric surgery for obese adults, from the perspective of the public. Australian public hospital system. Adults (N=1994), reflecting the age and gender distribution of Queensland and South Australia. A discrete choice experiment in which respondents indicated which of two individuals with different characteristics should be prioritised for surgery in repeated hypothetical choices. Potential surgery recipients were described by seven key characteristics or attributes: body mass index (BMI), presence of comorbid conditions, age, family history, commitment to lifestyle change, time on the surgical wait list and chance of maintaining weight loss following surgery. A multinomial logit model was used to evaluate preferences and derive priority weights (primary analysis), with a latent class model used to explore respondent characteristics that were associated with variation in preference across the sample (see online supplementary analysis). A preference was observed to prioritise individuals who demonstrated a strong commitment to maintaining a healthy lifestyle as well as individuals categorised with very severe (BMI≥50 kg/m(2)) or (to a lesser extent) severe (BMI≥40 kg/m(2)) obesity, those who already have obesity-related comorbidity, with a family history of obesity, with a greater chance of maintaining weight loss or who had spent a longer time on the wait list. Lifestyle commitment was considered to be more than twice as important as any other criterion. There was little tendency to prioritise according to the age of the recipient. Respondent preferences were dependent on their BMI, previous experience with weight management surgery, current health state and education level. This study extends our understanding of the publics' preferences for priority setting to the context of bariatric surgery, and derives priority weights that could be used to assist bodies responsible for commissioning bariatric services.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 89 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Master 14 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Professor 5 5%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 24 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 24%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 8 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 34 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 October 2015.
All research outputs
#4,660,035
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#8,431
of 25,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,458
of 291,054 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#117
of 334 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,589 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 291,054 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 334 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.