MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analysis of Patient Attrition in a Publicly Funded Bariatric Surgery Program

2014· article· en· W1971303460 on OpenAlexaffabout
Adam Diamant, Joseph Milner, Michelle C. Cleghorn, Sanjeev Sockalingam, Allan Okrainec, Timothy Jackson, Fayez A. Quereshy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Surgeons · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBariatric Surgery and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAttritionLogistic regressionReferralOdds ratioRetrospective cohort studyObesityOddsPsychological interventionPublic healthPopulationSurgeryFamily medicineInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a global epidemic, and several surgical programs have been created to combat this public health issue. Although demand for bariatric surgery has grown, so too has the attrition rate. In this study we identify patient characteristics and operational interventions that have contributed to high attrition in a multistage, multidisciplinary bariatric surgery program. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study was conducted of 1,682 patients referred for bariatric surgery at the University Health Network in Toronto, Canada, from June 2008 to July 2011. Demographic information, presurgical assessment dates, and records describing operational changes were collected. Several penalized likelihood and mixed effects multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine whether patient characteristics, operational changes, and previous experience affected program completion and intermediate transitions between assessments. RESULTS: Although the majority of attrition appears to be the result of patient self-removal, males (odds ratio [OR] 0.511, 95% CI 0.392 to 0.663, p < 0.001), and individuals with active substance use (OR 0.223, 95% CI 0.096 to 0.471, p < 0.001) were less likely to undergo surgery. Operational practices had a detrimental effect on program completion (OR 0.590, 95% CI 0.456 to 0.762, p < 0.001). Conversely, patients with a BMI > 40 kg/m(2) (OR 1.756, 95% CI 1.233 to 2.515, p = 0.002) and those who lived within 25 to 300 km of the center (OR > 1.633, p < 0.001) were more likely to undergo surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Certain subgroups in the referral population were found to be at a higher risk of noncompletion. Specialized care pathways must be implemented to address this issue. Furthermore, careful consideration must be given to operational decisions because they may negatively affect access to care, as we have shown.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American College of SurgeonsSame topicBariatric Surgery and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207