MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406147068 · doi:10.1017/s0266462324004136

PD191 Global Disparities In Bariatric Surgery Reimbursement: A Comparative Analysis Of 23 Countries

2024· article· en· W4406147068 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Birol Tibet, Amir Mustapha Sharaf, G. Kockaya

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReimbursementMedicineObesityGovernment (linguistics)Health carePublic healthEnvironmental healthEconomic growthNursingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Bariatric surgery is a weight loss procedure that supports significant and long-term weight loss for individuals with severe obesity by altering the digestive system. It improves health conditions associated with obesity and can be life changing. The purpose of the study was to examine the reimbursement criteria for bariatric surgery in certain countries. Methods A detailed review was conducted on bariatric surgery reimbursement criteria across 23 countries, analyzing official policies and guidelines from databases and government websites. The study compared national data to highlight similarities and differences in these criteria, offering insights into the varying reimbursement approaches for bariatric surgery internationally. Results The research compared global reimbursement policies for bariatric surgery, revealing that Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Morocco, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, Türkiye, and the UK support reimbursement for those with a body mass index over 40 kg/m2. However, Hungary, Nigeria, Libya, and Romania do not offer such reimbursements. This discrepancy highlights the diverse healthcare approaches to severe obesity treatment across countries. The absence of financial support in some regions indicates varying health priorities and economic constraints. These findings emphasize the need for harmonized global health policies, especially for obesity, which is a significant public health issue. Conclusions The study highlights substantial disparities in bariatric surgery reimbursement criteria across countries. These differences, despite the proven benefits of treating severe obesity and related health issues, suggest a need for more standardized reimbursement approaches. Future research should explore the specific conditions and requirements for reimbursement and how these policies impact access to and outcomes of bariatric surgery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.369 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health CareSame topicGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207