Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Recommendations from Two Citizens’ Juries on the Surgical Management of Obesity

  • Original Contributions
  • Published:
Obesity Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 20 February 2018

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background

It is important that guidelines and criteria used to prioritise access to bariatric surgery are informed by the values of the tax-paying public in combination with the expertise of healthcare professionals. Citizens’ juries are increasingly used around the world to engage the public in healthcare decision-making. This study investigated citizens’ juries about prioritising patient access to bariatric surgery in two Australian cities.

Objectives

The objective of this study is to examine public priorities for government expenditure on the surgical management of obesity developed through either a one or three-day citizen jury.

Subjects/Methods

A three-day jury was held in Brisbane and a one-day jury in Adelaide. Jurors were selected in Brisbane (n = 18) and in Adelaide (n = 12) according to pre-specified criteria. Expert witnesses from various medical disciplines and consumers were cross-examined by jurors.

Results

The verdicts of the juries were similar in that both juries agreed bariatric surgery was an important option in the management of obesity and related comorbidities. Recommendations about who should receive treatment differed slightly across the juries. Both juries rejected the use of age as a rationing tool, but managed their objections in different ways. Participants’ experiences of the jury process were positive, but our observations suggested that many variables may influence the nature of the final verdict.

Conclusions

Citizen’s juries, even when shorter in duration, can be an effective tool to guide the development of health policy and priorities. However, our study has identified a range of variables that should be considered when designing and running a jury and when interpreting the verdict.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 20 February 2018

    The spelling of the name of author K. Chalkidou was incorrect in the original article. It is correct here.

References

  1. Muller-Riemschneider F, Reinhold T, Berghofer A, et al. Health-economic burden of obesity in Europe. Eur J Epidemiol. 2008;23(8):499–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-008-9239-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Asia Pacific Cohort Studies Collaboration. The burden of overweight and obesity in the Asia–Pacific region. Obes Rev. 2007;8(3):191–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2006.00292.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. O’Brien P, MacDonald L, Anderson M, et al. Long-term outcomes after bariatric surgery: fifteen-year follow-up of adjustable gastric banding and a systematic review of the bariatric surgical literature. Ann Surg. 2013;257(1):87–94. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31827b6c02.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. National Health and Research Council. Summary guide for the management of overweight and obesity in primary care. Canberra; 2013.

  5. Korda R, Joshy G, Jorm L, et al. Inequalities in bariatric surgery in Australia: findings from 49,364 obese participants in a prospective cohort study. Med J Aust. 2012;197(11):631–6. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja12.11035.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Picot J, Jones J, Colquitt J, Gospodarevskaya E, Loveman E, Baxter L, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric (weight loss) surgery for obesity: a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technology Assesment 2009;13(41).

  7. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Obesity: identification, assessment and management. Clinical guideline. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2014.

  8. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Weight loss surgery in Australia. Canberra Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2010. Report No.: Cat. no. HSE 91.

  9. Menon D, Stafinski T. Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens’ jury. Health Expect. 2008;11(3):282–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2008.00501.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Kral J, Kava R, Catalano P, et al. Severe obesity: the neglected epidemic. Obesity facts. 2012;5(2):254–69. https://doi.org/10.1159/000338566.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. National Health and Research Council. Management of overweight and obesity in adults, adolescents and children. Clinical practice guidelines for primary care health professionals. Public consultation draft. Canberra; 2012.

  12. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Bariatric surgical service for the treatment of people with severe obesity. Commissioning guide. Implementing NICE guidance. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2007.

  13. National Institutes of Health. Gastrointestinal surgery for severe obesity: National Institutes of Health consensus development conference statement. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992;22(2):615S–9S.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Davies C, Wetherell M, Barnett E, et al. Opening the box: evaluating the citizens council of NICE. Milton-Keynes: The Open University; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Iredale R, Longley MF. From passive subject to active agent: the potential of Citizens’ juries for nursing research. Nurse Educ Today. 2007;27(7):788–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2006.10.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rogers W, Street J, Braunack-Mayer A, et al. Pandemic influenza communication: views from a deliberative forum. Health Expect. 2009;12(3):331–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00562.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. National institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Appraising life-extending, end of life treatments London: NICE; 2009 [17 Dec 2017]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-tag387/resources/appraising-life-extending-end-of-life-treatments-paper2.

  18. Commonwealth of Australia 2016. Progress in Australian regions yearbook. Canberra, 2016.

  19. Private Health Insurance Administration Council. Membership and Coverage Sydney, NSW: Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, 2015 [Available from: www.apra.gov.au/PHI/PHIAC-Archive/Pages/PHIAC-Archive-Membership-and-Coverage.aspx.

  20. Scuffham P, Ratcliffe J, Kendall E, et al. Engaging the public in healthcare decision-making: quantifying preferences for healthcare through citizens’ juries. BMJ Open. 2014;4(5):e005437. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005437.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Scuffham P, Moretto N, Krinks R, et al. Engaging the public in healthcare decision-making: results from a citizen’s jury on emergency care services. Emerg Med J. 2016;0:1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Whitty J, Ratcliffe J, Kendall E, et al. Prioritising patients for bariatric surgery: building public preferences from a discrete choice experiment into public policy. BMJ Open. 2015;5(10):e008919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008919.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Health expenditure Australia 2015–16. Canberra: AIHW; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Polyzogopoulou E, Kalfarentzos F, Vagenakis A, et al. Restoration of euglycemia and normal acute insulin response in obese subjects with type 2 diabetes following bariatric surgery. Diabetes. 2003;52(5):1098–103. https://doi.org/10.2337/diabetes.52.5.1098.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Amelung N. The emergence of citizen panels as a de facto standard. Quaderni. 2012;79:13–28. https://doi.org/10.4000/quaderni.616

  26. Krinks R, Kendall E, Whitty JA, Scuffham PA. Do consumer voices in health‐care citizens’ juries matter? Health Expectations. 2016;19(5):1015–22

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable input from all the expert witnesses, stakeholders, the jurors and the input from Debbie Cowan of Queensland Health for her work in facilitating engagement with Queensland Health. We also thank Kylie Rixon, Cassandra Ranatunga and the expert facilitators—Mr. Max Hardy of Max Hardy Consulting, Melbourne Australia and Ms. Danielle Annells of Danielle Annells Consulting Sydney Australia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

    P. A. Scuffham, R. Krinks & E. Kendall

  2. School of Medicine, Nathan Campus, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

    P. A. Scuffham

  3. Imperial College London, London, UK

    K. Chaulkidou

  4. Kings College London, London, UK

    P. Littlejohns

  5. University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK

    J. A. Whitty

  6. Menzies Centre for Health Policy, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    A. Wilson

  7. Cities Research Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

    P. Burton

Authors
  1. P. A. Scuffham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Krinks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. Chaulkidou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. P. Littlejohns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J. A. Whitty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. P. Burton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. E. Kendall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. A. Scuffham.

Ethics declarations

This project was approved by the Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee (Ref: MED/09/13/HREC) and the Metro South Hospital and Health Service Research Ethics Committee (Ref: HREC/12/QPAH/330). Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Scuffham, P.A., Krinks, R., Chaulkidou, K. et al. Recommendations from Two Citizens’ Juries on the Surgical Management of Obesity. OBES SURG 28, 1745–1752 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-017-3089-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-017-3089-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation