Cited by 39Obesity and Health PracticesBariatric Surgery and OutcomesPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Role of weight bias and patient–physician communication in the underutilization of bariatric surgery

Open access
Sarwer, David B., Gasoyan, Hamlet, Bauerle Bass, Sarah, Spitzer, Jacqueline C., Soans, Rohit, Rubin, Daniel J.·2021·Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases

Abstract

A growing body of evidence supports the efficacy and safety of bariatric surgery for clinically severe obesity. Despite this empirical support, bariatric surgery remains profoundly underutilized. The reasons for underutilization are likely multifactorial, including health insurance coverage and benefits design, lack of awareness about bariatric surgery by patients, and anecdotal concerns about safety. We believe that there are two other factors-the occurrence of weight stigma and bias and suboptimal communication between patients and providers-that also serve as barriers to greater utilization. The article reviews the existing literature related to these two factors. The review also highlights the science of shared medical decision-making as a potential strategy to promote appropriate conversations between patients and providers, both surgical and nonsurgical, about the efficacy and safety of bariatric surgery. Shared medical decision-making is used in other areas where complex medical decisions are required. We believe that it has great potential to contribute to the increased utilization for the millions of individuals who could benefit from bariatric surgery.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.soard.2021.07.013

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sarwer, D. B., Gasoyan, H., Bauerle Bass, S., Spitzer, J. C., Soans, R., & Rubin, D. J.
Affiliations
  • Temple University (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Venue
Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-11
Volume
17
Issue
11
Pages
1926-1932
ISSN
1550-7289 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3184350290
Cited by
39
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK108628)
  • National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (R01DE026603)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Obesity and Health Practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Bariatric Surgery and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
bariatric surgery, underutilization
MeSH terms
Communication, Humans, Obesity, Morbid, Physician-Patient Relations, Physicians, Bariatric Surgery

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