4.3 Article

Referral and utilization of paediatric bariatric surgery in an academic freestanding children's hospital with dedicated paediatric bariatric programme

期刊

PEDIATRIC OBESITY
卷 16, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ijpo.12830

关键词

adolescent; bariatric surgery; obesity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that a certain percentage of adolescents aged 13 to 18 are medically eligible for metabolic and bariatric surgery, but there are barriers to referral, especially for minorities, patients with public insurance, and those with multiple comorbidities.
Objective This report estimates the percent of medically eligible adolescents who are referred for metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) evaluation or factors associated with referral. Methods This cross-sectional retrospective review evaluated patients aged 13 to 18 years seen between 2017 and 2019 for demographics, insurance status, body mass index (BMI), obesity-related comorbidities, and compared these data to patients whom had been referred and received MBS. Results Half of the patients (86 411/163137, 53%) between ages of 13 and 18 years identified had BMI documented, of which, 1974 (2.3%) were medically eligible for MBS, 238 (12%) were referred for MBS and 52 (22%) underwent MBS. Females had similar odds of being eligible for MBS [odds ratio (OR) = 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-1.11, P = .9], but greater odds of referral (OR = 1.58, 95% CI 1.13-2.23, P = .009). Independently, miniorities and patients with public insurance had higher odds of being eligible for MBS, but similar odds of being referred as non-Hispanic white patients. Black patients with public insurance had greater odds of being referred for MBS (OR = 12.22, 95% CI 2.08-235.15, P = .022). Patients' multiple comorbidities had greater odds of being referred for MBS (OR = 2.16, 95% CI 1.29-3.68, P = .004). Conclusions Referral is barrier for patients medically eligible for MBS; however, this barrier is not uniformly faced by all patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据