Persistent use of body mass index policies as a barrier to surgery: Prevalence and analysis of policies across England in 2025.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Kevin Ofosu, Katie Whale, Joanna McLaughlin
{"title":"Persistent use of body mass index policies as a barrier to surgery: Prevalence and analysis of policies across England in 2025.","authors":"Kevin Ofosu, Katie Whale, Joanna McLaughlin","doi":"10.1177/13558196251405207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundIntegrated Care Boards (ICBs) in England are responsible for commissioning healthcare services and setting access policies for procedures such as hip and knee replacement surgery. While the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) advises against body mass index (BMI)-based restrictions, many ICBs impose such criteria. This study examines the prevalence and content of these policies to understand their impact on equitable healthcare access.MethodsA qualitative content analysis was conducted to systematically evaluate the policies set by all 42 ICBs in England regarding access to hip and knee replacement surgery for patients living with obesity. Policies were collected from official ICB websites and Google searches, completed in February 2025, and categorised as: no policy, restrictive policy, and non-restrictive policy. The alignment of these policies with clinical guidance was assessed, focusing on their potential impact on equitable healthcare access.ResultsPolicy documents were identified for 41 ICBs: 26 included weight management guidance and 15 imposed BMI-based restrictions on joint replacement referral eligibility. Policies varied in naming, terminology, and specificity, risking inconsistencies in interpretation and implementation. Some ICBs (<i>n</i> = 3) had revoked BMI-based restrictions in recent policy updates, reflecting a shift towards individualised clinical assessments. These findings highlight variability in policy approaches and the evolving stance on BMI-related eligibility criteria.ConclusionsOne third of ICBs still use policies that contradict NICE guidance by restricting access to joint replacement surgery for those with high BMI, while many others apply ambiguous language. These inconsistencies highlight concerns about policies that may influence equitable access to care. Further work is required to evaluate how BMI-related eligibility criteria are applied in practice and their impact on health inequalities.</p>","PeriodicalId":15953,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Services Research & Policy","volume":" ","pages":"173-180"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13263469/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Services Research & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13558196251405207","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundIntegrated Care Boards (ICBs) in England are responsible for commissioning healthcare services and setting access policies for procedures such as hip and knee replacement surgery. While the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) advises against body mass index (BMI)-based restrictions, many ICBs impose such criteria. This study examines the prevalence and content of these policies to understand their impact on equitable healthcare access.MethodsA qualitative content analysis was conducted to systematically evaluate the policies set by all 42 ICBs in England regarding access to hip and knee replacement surgery for patients living with obesity. Policies were collected from official ICB websites and Google searches, completed in February 2025, and categorised as: no policy, restrictive policy, and non-restrictive policy. The alignment of these policies with clinical guidance was assessed, focusing on their potential impact on equitable healthcare access.ResultsPolicy documents were identified for 41 ICBs: 26 included weight management guidance and 15 imposed BMI-based restrictions on joint replacement referral eligibility. Policies varied in naming, terminology, and specificity, risking inconsistencies in interpretation and implementation. Some ICBs (n = 3) had revoked BMI-based restrictions in recent policy updates, reflecting a shift towards individualised clinical assessments. These findings highlight variability in policy approaches and the evolving stance on BMI-related eligibility criteria.ConclusionsOne third of ICBs still use policies that contradict NICE guidance by restricting access to joint replacement surgery for those with high BMI, while many others apply ambiguous language. These inconsistencies highlight concerns about policies that may influence equitable access to care. Further work is required to evaluate how BMI-related eligibility criteria are applied in practice and their impact on health inequalities.

持续使用身体质量指数政策作为手术的障碍:2025年英格兰政策的患病率和分析。
背景:英格兰的综合护理委员会(ICBs)负责委托医疗保健服务,并为髋关节和膝关节置换手术等程序制定准入政策。虽然国家健康和护理卓越研究所(NICE)建议反对基于身体质量指数(BMI)的限制,但许多ICBs都实施了这样的标准。本研究考察了这些政策的流行程度和内容,以了解它们对公平医疗保健获取的影响。方法采用定性内容分析方法,系统评价英格兰所有42家ICBs制定的有关肥胖患者获得髋关节和膝关节置换手术的政策。政策收集自ICB官方网站和谷歌搜索,于2025年2月完成,分为:无政策、限制性政策和非限制性政策。评估了这些政策与临床指导的一致性,重点是它们对公平获得医疗保健的潜在影响。结果确定了41个ICBs的政策文件:26个包括体重管理指导,15个基于bmi对关节置换术转诊资格的限制。政策在命名、术语和特异性方面各不相同,可能导致解释和实施不一致。一些ICBs (n = 3)在最近的政策更新中取消了基于bmi的限制,反映了向个性化临床评估的转变。这些发现突出了政策方法的可变性和对bmi相关资格标准的不断演变的立场。结论:三分之一的ICBs仍然使用与NICE指南相矛盾的政策,限制高BMI患者进行关节置换手术,而许多其他ICBs使用模棱两可的语言。这些不一致突出了人们对可能影响公平获得保健的政策的关切。需要进一步开展工作,评估如何在实践中应用与bmi有关的资格标准及其对保健不平等的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.20%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: Journal of Health Services Research & Policy provides a unique opportunity to explore the ideas, policies and decisions shaping health services throughout the world. Edited and peer-reviewed by experts in the field and with a high academic standard and multidisciplinary approach, readers will gain a greater understanding of the current issues in healthcare policy and research. The journal"s strong international editorial advisory board also ensures that readers obtain a truly global and insightful perspective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书