Quantitative analysis of bariatric procedure trends 2001–13 in South Australia: implications for equity in access and public healthcare expenditure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives The aims of the present study were to: (1) identify trends in bariatric surgery in South Australia (SA) from 2001 to 2013; and (2) compare public and private hospitals, and so discuss the implications of these trends as they relate to equity in access to bariatric procedures and public system healthcare expenditure. Methods An analysis of retrospective data of all bariatric procedures in public and private hospitals in SA was conducted using all SA public and private hospital administrative records between 2001 and 2013. Results Of all procedures conducted in SA, 22.6% were revisions or reversals. The number of revisions or reversals conducted in SA has increased at a rate higher than weight loss procedures (6.4- vs 3.8-fold increase). An increasing proportion of public surgeries are revisions or reversals of weight loss procedures that occurred outside of the SA public system (interstate or in the private system). Conclusion Further investigation is necessary to identify the pathways patients navigate to access bariatric surgery, the utilisation of public services following private procedures and why rates of revisions or reversals of bariatric procedures are increasing in SA. What is known about the topic? Rates of bariatric surgery are increasing internationally as a treatment for obesity. What does this paper add? Trends in bariatric procedures in SA have not been published. We have identified that: (1) rates of bariatric revisions or reversals in SA far surpass the rate at which bariatric weight loss procedures are increasing; (2) rates of revisions or reversals are increasing in public hospitals; and (3) an increasing number of the revision or reversal procedures in public hospitals are for weight loss procedures that have occurred outside the public system. What are the implications for practitioners? The data have implications for practitioners caring for patients interested in undergoing bariatric surgery for the treatment of obesity. The data suggest that rates of revisions or reversals are increasing in public hospitals, which suggests that further information is needed regarding the effectiveness of weight loss procedures and the implications of revision or reversal increases on waiting times for patients seeking weight loss treatment in a system with limited resources.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".