Skip to main content

Over two million people in England may be eligible for surgery to treat obesity

Over two million people in England may be eligible for surgery to treat obesity, according to new research published in JRSM Open. However, fewer than 7000 patients underwent these procedures in 2011.

Carrying out more bariatric surgery procedures would help to reduce obesity-related ill health, the study authors from Imperial College London said, but the NHS may need to invest in more resources to meet demand.

Bariatric surgery – a set of surgical procedures performed on obese people to decrease their stomach size – can greatly reduce the likelihood of death from obesity-related diseases such as type 2 diabetes, stroke or coronary heart disease.

Despite clear guidelines outlining who can undergo such surgery with the NHS, and evidence that these procedures are cost-effective in the long run, less than one per cent of those eligible have weight loss surgery each year. The researchers say this raises questions about why more procedures are not currently being carried out.

One possible reason is lack of awareness of the surgical procedures and potential benefits. Commitment to lifestyle intervention is also an important barrier, as patients must be willing to enter a full life-changing programme involving intensive management in a specialist obesity service and commitment to long-term follow-up.

Those eligible are more likely to be women, be retired, have no formal education and be from a lower socio-economic status than the general population.

Dr Sonia Saxena, from the Department of Primary Care and Public Health at Imperial College London, said: “Performing more operations could be very good for the population in terms of improving patient health. You could cut down on a number of very severe conditions and extend life expectancy in patients who are likely to suffer significant problems as a result of their obesity.”

But the research, funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the National Institute for Health Research, revealed that the capacity of health services to meet this demand is limited.

The NHS would be overwhelmed because there isn’t the resource to actually carry out this number of operations,” Dr Saxena added.

If everyone who was eligible came forward there would most likely be a restriction because of funding and resource allocation at the local level.”

To calculate the number of eligible people, twe used population data from the 2006 Health Survey for England, a nationally representative household survey carried out every year by the government to plan health services and make policy decisions.

We combined them with guidelines from the 2006 UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). The NICE guidelines assess eligibility for bariatric surgery according to a person’s body mass index (BMI), a measure of body shape based on mass and height. People with a BMI exceeding 40, or those with a BMI between 35 and 40 and suffering from one or more obesity-related diseases, are eligible for bariatric surgery with the NHS.

But Dr Saxena explained that eligibility based on NICE guidelines alone is not the end of the story. “We know from our previous work in the United States that fewer bariatric surgery operations are carried out in disadvantaged groups who are most in need of the operation because of a lack of health coverage. But everyone who is eligible is entitled to the operation in the NHS and there is a huge potential health gain. Some of those who are eligible may not be aware they could benefit or willing to make the lifestyle changes for a successful procedure.”

Reference: A. Ahmad et al. 'Eligibility for bariatric surgery among adults in England: analysis of a national cross-sectional survey.' JRSM Open January 2014 vol. 5 no. 1

Media Coverage
BBC
Pulse
ITV
Daily Mirror
Daily Express
Daily Mail
MSN

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between primordial prevention and primary prevention?

Primordial prevention and primary prevention are both crucial strategies for promoting health, but they operate at different levels. Primordial prevention aims to address the root causes of health problems and improve the wider determinants of health. It focuses on preventing the emergence of risk factors in the first place by tackling the underlying social, economic, and environmental determinants of health. This involves broad, population-wide interventions such as: Policies that promote healthy food choices: Think about initiatives like taxing sugary drinks to discourage unhealthy consumption, or providing subsidies for fruits and vegetables to make them more accessible. Urban planning that prioritises well-being: This could include creating walkable neighborhoods with safe cycling routes, ensuring access to green spaces for recreation and relaxation, and designing communities that foster social connections. Social programs that address inequality: Initiatives aimed at reducing pov...

MPH Student Presentations on the NHS Care.Data Programme

As part of a session on primary care data in the Health Informatics module on the Imperial Master of Public Health Programme, I asked students to work in two groups to present arguments for and against the NHS Care.Data programme. Care.Data is an NHS programme that will extract data from the medical records held by general practitioners (GPs) in England. The Care.Data programme takes advantage of the very high level of use of electronic medical records by GPs in England. After extraction, data will be uploaded to the NHS Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC). The data will then be used for functions such as health care planning, monitoring disease patterns and research. The programme has been controversial with proponents arguing that the programme will bring many benefits for the NHS and the population of England; and opponents arguing it is a major breach of privacy. You can view the two presentations to help inform you further about these arguments: Arguments fo...

What makes a good doctor – and who gets to decide?

What Makes a Good Doctor? This is the question that Waseem Jerjes and I explore in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine . It is a key question that underpins the architecture of medical education, clinical practice, regulation, and professional identity. It cannot be answered by regulators, educators, or employers in isolation. It must be answered together – by doctors and patients – revisited throughout a career, and adapted as society and the profession change. Without that shared reflection, the danger is not simply disillusionment, but the erosion of the moral foundations of clinical work. As we enter an era when diagnosis will increasingly involve artificial intelligence and when performance metrics reward volume over value, reclaiming this question as a professional one is imperative. The integrity of our institutions – and of the practitioners within them – depends on reimagining excellence in inclusive, relational terms. A good doctor is not a flawless technician or a f...