The BAPRAS screening tool for reimbursement in a postbariatric population

Introduction: Reimbursement of body-contouring surgery (BCS) is a worldwide problem: there is no objective instrument to decide which postbariatric patients should qualify for reimbursement. The British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (BAPRAS) has developed a screening tool for this purpose. In this study, we used a modified version of this screening tool in a postbariatric population and describe which patients would qualify for reimbursement using this tool. Methods: In this cross-sectional study postbariatric patients were asked to fill in an online questionnaire based on the BAPRAS screening tool with questions regarding complaints of overhanging skin and medical history. Weight loss data were extracted from a prospective database. The BODY-Q was added to assess patient-reported outcomes. Results: Patients who wanted to undergo BCS (n = 90) had higher screening tool scores and lower BODY-Q scores compared to patients who did not want BCS (n = 24). In total, 25 patients (26%) qualified for reimbursement, these patients had higher weight loss (33.5% versus 29.2%, p = 0.008), lower BMI (27.3 kg/m2 versus 30.4 kg/m2, p = 0.014) and more medical (4.0 versus 2.0, p = 0.004) and psychological complaints (88% versus 61%, p = 0.009). There was a significant, negative correlation between the screening tool scores and almost all BODY-Q scales. Conclusions: Patients with a desire for BCS have more complaints of excess skin, which negatively impacts their well-being. With the modified BAPRAS screening tool, patients with the best weight (loss) and most medical and psychological complaints of excess skin qualified for referral and reimbursement of BCS

The BAPRAS screening tool for reimbursement in a postbariatric population

Introduction: Reimbursement of body-contouring surgery (BCS) is a worldwide problem: there is no objective instrument to decide which postbariatric patients should qualify for reimbursement. The British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (BAPRAS) has developed a screening tool for this purpose. In this study, we used a modified version of this screening tool in a postbariatric population and describe which patients would qualify for reimbursement using this tool. Methods: In this cross-sectional study postbariatric patients were asked to fill in an online questionnaire based on the BAPRAS screening tool with questions regarding complaints of overhanging skin and medical history. Weight loss data were extracted from a prospective database. The BODY-Q was added to assess patient-reported outcomes. Results: Patients who wanted to undergo BCS (n = 90) had higher screening tool scores and lower BODY-Q scores compared to patients who did not want BCS (n = 24). In total, 25 patients (26%) qualified for reimbursement, these patients had higher weight loss (33.5% versus 29.2%, p = 0.008), lower BMI (27.3 kg/m2 versus 30.4 kg/m2, p = 0.014) and more medical (4.0 versus 2.0, p = 0.004) and psychological complaints (88% versus 61%, p = 0.009). There was a significant, negative correlation between the screening tool scores and almost all BODY-Q scales. Conclusions: Patients with a desire for BCS have more complaints of excess skin, which negatively impacts their well-being. With the modified BAPRAS screening tool, patients with the best weight (loss) and most medical and psychological complaints of excess skin qualified for referral and reimbursement of BCS.</p

Outcomes of the first global multidisciplinary consensus meeting including persons living with obesity to standardize patient-reported outcome measurement in obesity treatment research

Quality of life is a key outcome that is not rigorously measured in obesity treatment research due to the lack of standardization of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and PRO measures (PROMs). The S.Q.O.T. initiative was founded to Standardize Quality of life measurement in Obesity Treatment. A first face-to-face, international, multidisciplinary consensus meeting was conducted to identify the key PROs and preferred PROMs for obesity treatment research. It comprised of 35 people living with obesity (PLWO) and healthcare providers (HCPs). Formal presentations, nominal group techniques, and modified Delphi exercises were used to develop consensus-based recommendations. The following eight PROs were considered important: self-esteem, physical health/functioning, mental/psychological health, social health, eating, stigma, body image, and excess skin. Self-esteem was considered the most important PRO, particularly for PLWO, while physical health was perceived to be the most important among HCPs. For each PRO, one or more PROMs were selected, except for stigma. This consensus meeting was a first step toward standardizing PROs (what to measure) and PROMs (how to measure) in obesity treatment research. It provides an overview of the key PROs and a first selection of the PROMs that can be used to evaluate these PROs

Outcomes of the first global multidisciplinary consensus meeting including persons living with obesity to standardize patient-reported outcome measurement in obesity treatment research

Quality of life is a key outcome that is not rigorously measured in obesity treatment research due to the lack of standardization of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and PRO measures (PROMs). The S.Q.O.T. initiative was founded to Standardize Quality of life measurement in Obesity Treatment. A first face-to-face, international, multidisciplinary consensus meeting was conducted to identify the key PROs and preferred PROMs for obesity treatment research. It comprised of 35 people living with obesity (PLWO) and healthcare providers (HCPs). Formal presentations, nominal group techniques, and modified Delphi exercises were used to develop consensus-based recommendations. The following eight PROs were considered important: self-esteem, physical health/functioning, mental/psychological health, social health, eating, stigma, body image, and excess skin. Self-esteem was considered the most important PRO, particularly for PLWO, while physical health was perceived to be the most important among HCPs. For each PRO, one or more PROMs were selected, except for stigma. This consensus meeting was a first step toward standardizing PROs (what to measure) and PROMs (how to measure) in obesity treatment research. It provides an overview of the key PROs and a first selection of the PROMs that can be used to evaluate these PROs