» Articles » PMID: 30484820

Patient Preferences for Bariatric Surgery: Findings From a Survey Using Discrete Choice Experiment Methodology

Overview
Journal JAMA Surg
Specialty General Surgery
Date 2018 Nov 29
PMID 30484820
Citations 21
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Importance: Surgical options for weight loss vary considerably in risks and benefits, but the relative importance of procedure-associated characteristics in patient decision making is largely unknown.

Objective: To identify patient preferences for risks, benefits, and other attributes of treatment options available to individuals who are candidates for bariatric surgery.

Design, Setting, And Participants: This discrete choice experiment of weight loss procedures was performed as an internet-based survey administered to patients recruited from bariatric surgery information sessions in the State of Michigan. Each procedure was described by the following set of attributes: (1) treatment method, (2) recovery and reversibility, (3) time that treatment has been available, (4) expected weight loss, (5) effect on other medical conditions, (6) risk of complication, (7) adverse effects, (8) changes to diet, and (9) out-of-pocket costs. Participants chose between surgical profiles by comparing attributes. Survey data were collected from May 1, 2015, through January 30, 2016, and analyzed from February 1 to June 30, 2016.

Main Outcomes And Measures: Estimated relative value of risks and benefits for leading weight-loss surgical options and marginal willingness to pay for procedure attributes. A latent class analysis identified respondent subgroups.

Results: Among the 815 respondents (79.9% women; mean [SD] age, 44.5 [12.0] years), profiles of hypothetical procedures that included resolution of medical conditions (coefficient for full resolution, 0.229 [95% CI, 0.177 to 0.280; P < .001]; coefficient for no resolution, -0.207 [95% CI, -0.254 to -0.159; P < .001]), higher total weight loss (coefficient for each additional 20% loss, 0.185 [95% CI, 0.166 to 0.205; P < .001]), and lower out-of-pocket costs (coefficient for each additional $1000, -0.034 [95% CI, -0.042 to -0.025; P < .001]) were most likely to be selected. Younger respondents were more likely than older respondents to choose treatments with higher weight loss (coefficient for loss of 80% excess weight 0.543 [95% CI, 0.435-0.651] vs 0.397 [95% CI, 0.315-0.482]) and were more sensitive to out-of-pocket costs (coefficient for $100 out-of-pocket costs, 0.346 [95% CI, 0.221-0.470] vs 0.262 [95% CI, 0.174 to 0.350]; coefficient for $15 000 in out-of-pocket costs, -0.768 [95% CI, -0.938 to -0.598] vs -0.384 [95% CI, -0.500 to -0.268]). Marginal willingness to pay indicated respondents would pay $5470 for losing each additional 20% of excess body weight and $12 843 for resolution of existing medical conditions, the most desired procedure attributes. Latent class analysis identified the following 3 unobserved subgroups: cost-sensitive (most concerned with costs); benefit-focused (most concerned with excess weight loss and resolution of medical conditions); and procedure-focused (most concerned with how the treatment itself worked, including recovery and reversibility).

Conclusions And Relevance: Candidates for bariatric surgery identified costs, expected weight loss, and resolution of medical conditions as the most important characteristics of weight loss surgery decisions. Other information, such as risk of complications and adverse effects, were important to patients but less so.

Citing Articles

Investigating the Obesity Paradox in Colorectal Cancer: An Analysis of Prospectively Collected Data in a Diverse Cohort.

Kumar S, Blandon C, Sikorskii A, Kaplan D, Mehta S, Su G Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(17).

PMID: 39272808 PMC: 11394385. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16172950.


Online Search Trends Related to Bariatric Surgery and Their Relationship with Utilization in Australia.

Huynh R, Satchithanandha V, Park J, Seyfi D, Joseph D Obes Surg. 2024; 34(9):3412-3419.

PMID: 39141188 PMC: 11349787. DOI: 10.1007/s11695-024-07457-1.


Patient and Healthcare Professional Preferences for Prescription Weight Loss Medications in Australia: Two Discrete Choice Experiments.

Fifer S, Keen B, Porter A Patient Prefer Adherence. 2024; 18:435-454.

PMID: 38406377 PMC: 10889143. DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S446106.


Outcomes of SADI and OAGB Compared to RYGB from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Quality Improvement Program: The North American Experience.

Chao G, Canner J, Hamid S, Ying L, Ghiassi S, Schwartz J Obes Surg. 2024; 34(2):337-346.

PMID: 38170422 DOI: 10.1007/s11695-023-07019-x.


Third time's a charm: band to sleeve to bypass.

Dang J, Hage K, Corbett J, Abi Mosleh K, Kroh M, Ghanem O Surg Endosc. 2023; 38(1):419-425.

PMID: 37978081 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10534-8.


References
1.
Arble D, Sandoval D, Seeley R . Mechanisms underlying weight loss and metabolic improvements in rodent models of bariatric surgery. Diabetologia. 2014; 58(2):211-20. PMC: 4289431. DOI: 10.1007/s00125-014-3433-3. View

2.
Funk L, Jolles S, Fischer L, Voils C . Patient and Referring Practitioner Characteristics Associated With the Likelihood of Undergoing Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review. JAMA Surg. 2015; 150(10):999-1005. PMC: 4992360. DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2015.1250. View

3.
Wee C, Jones D, Davis R, Bourland A, Hamel M . Understanding patients' value of weight loss and expectations for bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. 2006; 16(4):496-500. DOI: 10.1381/096089206776327260. View

4.
Ryan M, Farrar S . Using conjoint analysis to elicit preferences for health care. BMJ. 2000; 320(7248):1530-3. PMC: 1118112. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.320.7248.1530. View

5.
Ross M, Avery A, Foss A . Views of older people on cataract surgery options: an assessment of preferences by conjoint analysis. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003; 12(1):13-7. PMC: 1743653. DOI: 10.1136/qhc.12.1.13. View