Exploring isolation, self-directed care and extensive follow-up: factors heightening the health and safety risks of bariatric surgery abroad among Canadian medical tourists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This article explores first-hand accounts of Canadian bariatric patients' experiences of seeking and obtaining weight loss surgery abroad through the practice of medical tourism. While researchers have identified many of the challenges and associated health and safety risks imposed on patients by engaging in medical tourism generally, little is known about the specific challenges experienced by Canadians seeking bariatric surgery abroad. METHOD: To better understand these challenges, we conducted thematic analysis on interviews conducted with 20 former Canadian bariatric tourists. RESULTS: Our analysis illuminated three key challenges Canadians face in obtaining bariatric care: (1) stigma and isolation from friends, family and medical professionals; (2) self-directed navigation of domestic and destination health care systems; and (3) challenges with obtaining adequate follow-up care in Canada. CONCLUSIONS: While these challenges identified by participants may occur in other forms of medical tourism, it appears that these challenges are occurring simultaneously in cases of bariatric tourism by Canadians. These challenges appear to work in conjunction to heighten the health and safety risks potential Canadian bariatric tourists may be exposed to. Unless structural changes occur to increase domestic availability of bariatric surgery, Canadians are likely to continue seeking this care abroad.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".