Comparison of public and private bariatric surgery services in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical treatment of obesity is cost-effective and improves life expectancy. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and adjustable gastric banding (AGB) are dominant surgical techniques, but RYGB is the only publicly insured procedure in all Canadian provinces. Private clinics currently offer AGB with minimal wait times. We sought to compare RYGB in public facilities with AGB in private clinics in terms of cost, wait times and certain aspects of patient care. METHODS: We conducted telephone interviews of all bariatric surgery providers across Canada (100% response rate). We asked about various aspects of care, such as wait time, cost, pre- and postoperative care and surgeon experience. RESULTS: The median out-of-pocket cost for AGB at private facilities is $16,000 (range $13,160-$18,375). Private clinics have much shorter wait times for AGB than public facilities do for RYGB (1 v. 21 mo, p < 0.001). Private clinics provide significantly fewer preoperative visits with multidisciplinary health professionals (2.7 v. 4.3, p = 0.045), and 5 of 12 (42%) private clinics conduct AGB surgeries without on-site critical care for high-risk (based on the respondents' definitions) patients. CONCLUSION: Private clinics performing AGB offer short wait times, but the cost is high. We found a great deal of variation between pre- and postoperative care among bariatric surgery facilities, and in some cases patient care appears to be less comprehensive. Our findings suggest that further research on obesity treatment is needed to inform policy so that all Canadians can have equitable and timely access to proven, evidence-based care.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".