Variation in the Commissioning of Semaglutide for the Treatment of Obesity and Overweight Across England: Results of Three Freedom of Information‐Based Mapping Exercises Across the 42 Integrated Care Boards of England
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Obesity medications are recommended in England with legislation necessitating their availability. However, given the number of people who meet clinically approved eligibility criteria, funding these medications and associated support services may limit efficacy at a population health level. This study aimed to assess the commissioning and availability of services and obesity medications across England. Three sets of freedom of information requests were sent to the 42 ICBs in England by Sky News Ltd, The BMJ and the study investigators of this work with questions focused on commissioning of services and medication eligibility and prescription across England. The three data sets were combined to provide a narrative description to inform further development in obesity care. The availability of services across England was partial, and when services did exist, medication access was limited by funding and more restrictive eligibility criteria beyond those approved by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Subsequently, very few patients receive NHS prescriptions even in areas where funding medications are reportedly available. The capacity of services to offer comprehensive care for patients to receive obesity medications is insufficient to meet current demand. Despite legislation for the delivery of obesity medications, these treatment options are not widely available on the NHS. There is insufficient service capacity to provide comprehensive care for eligible patients seeking obesity medications as a treatment option.
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 | 0.013 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".