Stigma Toward Bariatric Surgery in the Netherlands, France, and the United Kingdom: Protocol for a Cross-cultural Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery is an effective procedure for the treatment of obesity. Despite this, only 0.1% to 2% of eligible individuals undergo surgery worldwide. The stigma surrounding surgery might be a reason for this. Thus far, no research has systematically studied the nature and implications of bariatric surgery stigma. The limited studies on bariatric surgery stigma are often conducted from the perspective of the public or health care professions and either use small and nonrepresentative samples or fail to capture the full essence and implications of the stigma altogether, including attitudes toward patients and perpetrators of the stigma. In addition, studies from patients' perspectives are limited and tend to address bariatric surgery stigma superficially or implicitly. Finally, the extent to which cultural factors shape and facilitate this stigma and the experiences of patients have not yet been researched. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the perceptions, experiences, and consequences of bariatric surgery stigma from the perspective of the public, health care professionals, and patients before and after bariatric surgery. Furthermore, although the concept of stigma is universal, every society has specific cultural norms and values that define acceptable attributes and behaviors for its members. Therefore, this study also aimed to explore the extent to which cultural factors influence bariatric surgery stigma by comparing the Netherlands, France, and the United Kingdom. METHODS: This paper describes the protocol for a multiphase mixed methods research design. In the first part, we will conduct a scoping review to determine the current knowledge on bariatric surgery stigma and identify knowledge gaps. In the second part, semistructured interviews among patients before and after bariatric surgery will be conducted to explore their experiences and consequences of bariatric surgery stigma. In the third part, surveys will be conducted among both the public and health care professionals to determine the prevalence, nature, and impact of bariatric surgery stigma. Surveys and interviews will be conducted in the Netherlands, France, and the United Kingdom. Finally, data integration will be conducted at the interpretation and reporting levels. RESULTS: The study began in September 2020 and will continue through September 2025. With the results of the review, we will create an overview of the current knowledge regarding bariatric surgery stigma from patients' perspectives. Qualitative data will provide insights into patients' experiences with bariatric surgery stigma. Quantitative data will provide information related to the prevalence and nature of bariatric surgery stigma from the perspective of the public and health care professionals. Both qualitative and quantitative data will be compared for each country. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study will lead to new insights that can be used to develop strategies to reduce bariatric surgery stigma and improve access, use, and outcomes of bariatric surgery. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/36753.
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 | 0.086 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.007 |
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".