↓ Skip to main content

Sex, Race, and the Quality of Life Factors Most Important to Patients’ Well-Being Among Those Seeking Bariatric Surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Obesity Surgery, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
Title
Sex, Race, and the Quality of Life Factors Most Important to Patients’ Well-Being Among Those Seeking Bariatric Surgery
Published in
Obesity Surgery, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11695-015-1956-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christina C. Wee, Roger B. Davis, Dan B. Jones, Caroline A. Apovian, Sarah Chiodi, Karen W. Huskey, Mary B. Hamel

Abstract

Evidence suggests obesity-related social stigma and impairment in work function may be the two most detrimental quality of life (QOL) factors to overall well-being among patients seeking weight loss surgery (WLS); whether the relative importance of QOL factors varies across patient sex and race/ethnicity is unclear. We interviewed 574 patients seeking WLS at two centers. We measured patient's health utility (preference-based well-being measure) as determined via standard gamble scenarios assessing patients' willingness to risk death to achieve weight loss or perfect health. Multivariable models assessed associations between patients' utility and five weight-related QOL domains stratified by gender and race: social stigma, self-esteem, physical function, public distress (weight stigma), and work life. Depending on patients' sex and race/ethnicity, mean utilities ranged from 0.85 to 0.91, reflecting an average willingness to assume a 9-15 % risk of death to achieve their most desired health/weight state. After adjustment, African Americans (AAs) reported higher utility than Caucasians (+0.054, p = 0.03), but utilities did not vary significantly by sex. Among Caucasian and AA men, impairment in physical functioning was the most important factor associated with diminished utility; social stigma was also a leading factor for Caucasian men. Among Caucasian women, self-esteem and work function appeared equally important. Social stigma was the leading contributor to utility among AA women; QOL factors did not appear as important among Hispanic patients. AAs reported higher utilities than Caucasian patients. Individual QOL domains that drive diminished well-being varied across race/ethnicity and sex.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users 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 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 89 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 18%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 22 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 14%
Psychology 12 13%
Social Sciences 9 10%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 26 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 12 January 2021.
All research outputs
#6,042,017
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from Obesity Surgery
#797
of 3,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,823
of 387,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Obesity Surgery
#13
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,375 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 387,655 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.