Australian study finds more public bariatric follow‑up visits, without a clear weight‑loss difference beyond six months

Patients at public bariatric services in one Australian study attended more follow-up appointments than patients at private services. The study found no statistically significant difference in relative weight loss beyond six months. This does not establish that the two care pathways work equally well.

The study included 240 adults at four services in New South Wales between 2021 and 2024. Two services were public and two were private. Of the participants, 64 had public surgery and 176 had private surgery. The paper appeared online in Obesity Research & Clinical Practice on September 8, 2026.

Public patients attended more appointments before and after surgery

After surgery, public patients attended a median of 12 appointments, compared with seven in private services. A median is the middle value in a group. Half the public group attended between nine and 18 appointments. Half the private group attended between five and 10.

Public patients also remained involved in follow-up for longer: 18.2 months compared with 14.5 months. They left follow-up later, but the proportion who stopped follow-up was similar between the groups by 24 months. The abstract does not give those proportions.

The differences started before surgery. Public patients spent longer in care before their operation and attended more appointments with a team of different health professionals. They had more contact with nonsurgical doctors, dietitians, nurses, psychologists, and exercise professionals.

These findings describe different patterns of support around surgery. They do not establish an ideal appointment count or prove that a person needs fewer visits.

The groups had different health and social needs

The public group started with higher weight and body mass index, or BMI. BMI relates weight to height. Public patients also had more coexisting health conditions and greater socioeconomic disadvantage. These differences matter when comparing attendance and outcomes.

The researchers followed existing care pathways. They did not randomly assign patients to public or private services. Differences in patients, services, and support needs can affect the results. The authors specifically caution against conclusions about which pathway is more effective.

The absence of a statistically significant weight-loss difference beyond six months does not prove that the services are equivalent. It also does not show that follow-up lacks value. The study cannot separate the effect of appointment numbers from the different needs of the people who attended them.

The abstract leaves important outcome details unresolved

This report is based on the complete indexed abstract and author disclosure, not the full paper. The abstract does not give the groups' weight-loss percentages beyond six months or confidence intervals for that comparison. It does not establish a difference in complications, nutritional problems, or quality of life.

The findings come from four Australian services. They do not define a U.S. standard of care or predict an individual patient's result. The useful finding is that care pathways differed substantially in attendance and duration, even though the observed weight-loss comparison did not show a significant difference.

Some authors disclosed industry and service relationships

Janet Franklin disclosed Novo Nordisk honoraria. Kathryn Williams disclosed research contracts, consulting fees, honoraria, or travel support involving Novo Nordisk, Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Pfizer. Several authors worked at the participating services. The disclosure says these relationships were unrelated to the study. It says they had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, or interpretation. They also had no role in manuscript preparation or the decision to submit the manuscript.