Cited by 81Bariatric Surgery and OutcomesMedication Adherence and ComplianceObesity and Health Practices

Preoperative predictors of adherence to multidisciplinary follow-up care postbariatric surgery

Larjani, Soroush, Spivak, Israel, Hao Guo, Ming, Aliarzadeh, Babak, Wang, Wei, Robinson, Sandra, Sockalingam, Sanjeev, Aarts, Mary-Anne·2016·Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases

Abstract

Background Long-term multidisciplinary care after bariatric surgery is important for weight maintenance and management of co-morbidities. Despite this, the rate of attendance to follow-up appointments is universally low.Objective To identify patient factors that contribute to adherence to follow-up care after bariatric surgery.Setting Three university-affiliated hospitals in Canada Methods A cohort study of 388 patients who underwent bariatric surgery from January 2011 to December 2011 was performed. This program mandates multidisciplinary follow-up care at 3, 6, and 12 months, and annually thereafter. Patients' socioeconomic, psychosocial, and medical and psychiatric co-morbidities were recorded prospectively. Adherence to follow-up care was defined as having attended the majority of clinic visits (3 or 4 out of 4); all other patients were considered nonadherent.Results The mean age of patients was 45.0 years, 81.2% were female, and the majority underwent a gastric bypass (91.8%) versus a sleeve gastrectomy (8.2%); 62.1% of patients were adherent to follow-up appointments. Patients older than 25 years had a higher adherence rate than those who were younger (63.2% versus 37.5%, P = .040). Patients with full-time or part-time employment had a significantly higher adherence rate than those who were unemployed or retired (65.6% versus 50.0%, P = .017, odds ratio 1.9). Patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) before surgery had higher follow-up adherence than those without OSA (62.2% versus 37.8%, P = .044). In multivariate analysis, employment remained an independent predictor of follow-up adherence (P = .017).Conclusion Employment was the strongest predictor of attendance to follow-up clinic. Patients with OSA and older patients were also more likely to return consistently for scheduled follow-up.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.soard.2015.11.007

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Larjani, S., Spivak, I., Hao Guo, M., Aliarzadeh, B., Wang, W., Robinson, S., Sockalingam, S., & Aarts, M.-A.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University Health Network (CA)
Corresponding author
Aarts, Mary-Anne
Venue
Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-02
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
350-356
ISSN
1550-7289 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2172931772
Cited by
81
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4
FWCI
5.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Bariatric Surgery and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Obesity and Health Practices
Keywords
bariatric surgery, follow-up adherence
MeSH terms
Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Obesity, Morbid, Patient Compliance, Laparoscopy, Prognosis, Retrospective Studies, Weight Loss, Treatment Outcome, Bariatric Surgery, Preoperative Period

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review