Examining the Barriers to Accessing Body Contouring Surgery: A Qualitative Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Only a fraction of post-bariatric patients who develop excess skin folds receive their desired body contouring surgery (BCS) to correct this complication. Our study aimed to explore all potential barriers to accessing BCS in a Canadian setting. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 patients who have received either bariatric surgery and BCS or only bariatric surgery in order to achieve saturation of themes using grounded theory analysis. Results: Nine out of 10 interviewees reported having significant excess skin folds, and all nine of these patients reported a desire for BCS. The most frequently reported barrier was cost (n=9). Patients identified six additional barriers preventing access to BCS that were classified into two categories: patient barriers, which included fear of the surgery, others' perception of surgery, information seeking difficulties, and logistics of the surgery, and healthcare system barriers, which consisted of the prolonged wait time for BCS and lack of advocacy for patients. Conclusion: Despite the potential benefit of and strong desire for BCS for excess skin folds post-bariatric surgery, our study highlighted cost and several barriers beyond cost that influence patient access to this surgical procedure. This suggests reassessing strategies for more comprehensive post-bariatric 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it