Accessibility settings

Published on in Vol 9 (2026)

Preprints (earlier versions) of this paper are available at https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/86816, first published .
Two women preparing a healthy meal with fresh vegetables in a kitchen.

Online Lifestyle Support for Adolescents Undergoing Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: Pilot Prospective Cohort Study

Online Lifestyle Support for Adolescents Undergoing Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery: Pilot Prospective Cohort Study

1Peter O’Donnell Jr. School of Public Health, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, United States

2Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States

3Child and Adolescent Population Health Program, Children’s Health System of Texas, Dallas, TX, United States

4Children’s Health System of Texas, Dallas, TX, United States

5University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth) School of Public Health, Dallas, TX, United States

6Department of Psychiatry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States

7School of Allied Health Professions, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States

8Touchstone Diabetes Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States

9Department of Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, United States

Corresponding Author:

Sarah E Messiah, MPH, PhD


Background: Metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is a safe and effective treatment for adolescents with severe obesity, yet no standardized lifestyle interventions exist to support sustained behavior change after MBS.

Objective: This pilot study assessed the feasibility and acceptability of TeenLyft, an online lifestyle support program for adolescents undergoing MBS, and explored preliminary clinical and safety outcomes to inform the design of a future randomized trial.

Methods: Adolescents aged 13 to 18 years were recruited from a tertiary care MBS center and enrolled in TeenLyft. The study was not powered or designed as a randomized controlled trial but rather as a pilot to guide future randomized controlled trial development. Feasibility domains included recruitment, retention, data completeness, intervention fidelity, and engagement, with predefined progression criteria of ≥80% enrollment, ≥70% retention, ≥70% data completeness, and ≥90% fidelity. Exploratory clinical and safety measures (weight, BMI, and cardiometabolic markers) were collected descriptively to confirm that participation was not associated with harm.

Results: Twenty-nine adolescents (mean age 15.9 years, SD 1.1; n=22, 75.9% female; n=13, 44.8% Hispanic; mean BMI 47.8, SD 7.3 kg/m2) were enrolled, representing 145% of the recruitment target (n=20), with 72.4% retention at 6 months. All feasibility progression criteria were met. Descriptive trends showed expected post-MBS reductions in weight and BMI and improvements in blood pressure and hemoglobin A1c, with no adverse cardiometabolic effects observed.

Conclusions: TeenLyft demonstrated high feasibility, acceptability, and safety as an adjunct to adolescent MBS care. Findings support progression to a fully powered randomized trial to evaluate long-term effectiveness and sustainability.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05393570; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05393570

JMIR Pediatr Parent 2026;9:e86816

doi:10.2196/86816

Keywords



Severe obesity in childhood, defined as a BMI ≥120% of the 95th percentile for age and sex or an absolute BMI >35 kg/m2, represents the most rapidly increasing form of pediatric obesity in the United States [1]. Among adolescents aged 13 to 19 years, the prevalence of class III obesity rose from 2.1% in 2019 to 2.7% in 2023, equivalent to nearly 1 million youth (P value for trend <.001) [2]. Reflecting its growing impact, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has described pediatric severe obesity as “an epidemic within an epidemic” [3]. This condition contributes to elevated risks for cardiometabolic, hepatic, and renal complications, as well as diminished sleep quality and mental health, ultimately lowering health-related quality of life [3-5]. In addition, obesity in adolescence strongly predicts adult obesity and is linked to increased rates of asthma, arthritis, metabolic dysfunction, psychological distress, and at least 13 forms of cancer, contributing to reduced life expectancy [6-10].

Although behavioral lifestyle programs are foundational to pediatric obesity treatment, evidence indicates that such programs alone rarely produce sustained or clinically meaningful weight loss in adolescents with severe obesity [11-14]. In contrast, metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) has been shown to be both effective and safe for this population [15-18]. The 2019 AAP clinical practice statement recommends a family-centered, nonstigmatizing approach to obesity treatment that includes behavioral and lifestyle interventions, pharmacotherapy beginning around age 12 years, and MBS as an option for adolescents with severe obesity from approximately age 13 years when clinically appropriate [3,19]. To promote equitable access, the AAP further emphasizes that health care providers should inform families about surgical options and provide comprehensive preoperative and postoperative support [19]. Consistent with this guidance, national data show a steady rise in MBS use among US adolescents [2,20]. The treatment landscape for adolescent obesity continues to evolve with the approval of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists for pediatric obesity treatment. Although these medications have expanded therapeutic options for adolescents with severe obesity, MBS remains the most effective intervention for achieving substantial and sustained weight loss among appropriately selected youth [15-18]. Accordingly, there remains an ongoing need for strategies that support long-term behavioral adherence following surgery.

Despite this progress, there remains a critical gap in standardized, age-appropriate lifestyle interventions designed to accompany and sustain the behavioral changes required for long-term success after MBS [21,22]. To address this gap, we developed TeenLyft, a tailored online lifestyle support program grounded in the principles of the Diabetes Prevention Program Group Lifestyle Balance (DPP-GLB) model [23-27]. Prior DPP-GLB implementations have demonstrated improvements in BMI and cardiometabolic markers in adult populations [28]. The adaptation process for TeenLyft incorporated adolescent and caregiver input to prioritize relevant content and delivery methods. Core curriculum topics included caloric balance, nutrition, physical activity, and strategies for overcoming setbacks. Formative research also identified key motivational factors (eg, health improvement and family encouragement) and barriers (eg, fear of complications and lack of peer support) that informed the intervention design [29].

The present study reported findings from the pilot evaluation of TeenLyft among adolescent MBS recipients. Specifically, this analysis examined feasibility domains including recruitment, retention, data completeness, intervention fidelity, and participant engagement, as well as exploratory safety indicators (eg, weight, BMI, and cardiometabolic markers) to ensure the program was not associated with harm. These pilot data were collected to inform the design, progression criteria, and outcome selection for a future randomized controlled trial (RCT).


Procedures

In 2021, we were awarded funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver (NCT05393570) to develop and evaluate a lifestyle support program tailored for adolescents undergoing MBS. The study used a mixed methods, proof-of-concept framework to guide intervention development and pilot testing [30]. Between January 2023 and March 2024, participants were recruited from a multidisciplinary adolescent MBS clinic offering integrated psychological and nutritional care. The TeenLyft intervention content was codeveloped with input from adolescents and caregivers, drawing on principles of the DPP-GLB curriculum.

In brief, TeenLyft was a 6-month behavioral lifestyle support intervention adapted from the DPP-GLB curriculum and tailored for adolescents undergoing MBS. Guided by social cognitive theory and formative work with adolescents and caregivers, TeenLyft addressed healthy eating, physical activity, stress and emotion management, motivation, and strategies for maintaining weight-related behavior change following surgery. Content was delivered through brief online video modules distributed through YouTube (Alphabet Inc) and Facebook (Meta Platforms). A total of 86 videos were developed, including preoperative and postoperative content, with videos averaging approximately 2 to 5 minutes in length. Additional details regarding intervention development and adaptation have been published previously [29].

Ethical Considerations

Human subjects approval was obtained prior to study initiation from the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Institutional Review Board (IRB; HSC-SPH-19‐0406), with the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and the Children’s Health System of Texas participating under IRB reliance agreements. Parental consent and adolescent assent were secured in accordance with ethical standards. Although consent materials were available in English and Spanish, all participants elected to complete the study in English. All study procedures were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board and the Declaration of Helsinki.

Study Design

This investigation used a quasiexperimental, prospective cohort design without a control group or random assignment, consistent with the intent of a pilot feasibility study. The primary objective was to evaluate feasibility and acceptability outcomes including recruitment, retention, data completeness, intervention fidelity, and participant engagement to inform the design and implementation of a future fully powered RCT. Given this feasibility focus, no control group was included, and statistical analyses were descriptive in nature. Reporting followed the TREND (Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs) guidelines, which complement the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extension for pilot and feasibility trials by emphasizing transparent reporting of design, conduct, and feasibility outcomes for nonrandomized studies. Because this was a single-arm feasibility study without randomization or treatment allocation, participants, study staff, and outcome assessors were not blinded. Clinical outcome measures were obtained from routinely collected electronic health record data using standardized clinical procedures.

The study was guided by the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) framework. RE-AIM informed the selection of feasibility outcomes by focusing on participant reach (enrollment), implementation (intervention fidelity), and maintenance (retention and follow-up completion). Consistent with the goals of a pilot study, recruitment, retention, data completeness, intervention fidelity, and participant engagement were selected as primary feasibility indicators to inform progression to a future randomized trial. Exploratory clinical outcomes, including anthropometric and cardiometabolic measures, were collected to evaluate safety and identify candidate end points for future efficacy testing and are reported elsewhere [30].

Participants

Adolescents were recruited from the adolescent MBS program at Children’s Health System of Texas. Eligibility criteria included (1) age 13 to 18 years, (2) meeting National Institutes of Health criteria for adolescent MBS [31], (3) ability to communicate in English or Spanish, and (4) access to study materials through the internet or a smartphone. Participants were required to complete the standard multidisciplinary clinical evaluation process for MBS, including psychological clearance. Exclusion criteria included adolescents who were not medically eligible for MBS, declined participation, or had diabetes requiring mealtime insulin. Eligibility criteria were intentionally broad to reflect real-world clinical practice and support evaluation of intervention feasibility and acceptability in a representative adolescent MBS population. All participants underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass was not performed among adolescents treated within the study program during the enrollment period; therefore, no participants undergoing gastric bypass were available for inclusion.

Feasibility Measures

Feasibility outcomes were the primary end points of this pilot study. Enrollment counts (consented participants) were tracked against a target of 20 participants to assess recruitment success. Retention rates at 3- and 6-month follow-up visits were recorded to evaluate ongoing engagement. Data completeness for anthropometric and laboratory measures was used to assess the feasibility of data collection processes. Online platform analytics (YouTube and Facebook) quantified module views and average watch times during the 6-month intervention. Fidelity was monitored through delivery checklists ensuring adherence to planned content and format, and qualitative notes captured any technology-related barriers or participant burden.

Feasibility was defined a priori as achieving ≥80% of the recruitment target, ≥70% retention by 6 months, ≥70% data completeness, and ≥90% fidelity to planned intervention delivery. Outcome assessments were obtained at baseline (before MBS) and during routine clinical follow-up visits approximately 3 and 6 months following surgery. Anthropometric and cardiometabolic measures were extracted from the electronic health record as part of standard clinical care.

Exploratory Clinical and Safety Measures

Although not powered for hypothesis testing, exploratory outcomes were collected to ensure the intervention was not associated with harm and to guide end point selection for future trials. Measures included excess weight loss, BMI (raw, percentile, and z score), and cardiometabolic indicators (systolic and diastolic blood pressure, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting glucose, and lipid profiles).

Covariates

Age, sex, race, ethnicity, and social determinants of health (SDOH) were treated as covariates. SDOH variables were derived from a standardized health system screener comprising 13 questions spanning key domains including health literacy, social support, food security, transportation access, financial stability, housing conditions, and tobacco exposure [31,32]. The screener aligns with the SDOH priority areas outlined in Healthy People 2030 [33]. Specifically, food and housing insecurity correspond to the economic stability domain; tobacco use, transportation, and access to utilities and the internet align with neighborhood and built environment; and social support and health literacy map to the social and community context and health care access and quality domains [34]. The instrument incorporates validated items, such as the hunger vital sign for food insecurity, adapted for pediatric and family use [35].

Statistical Analysis

Feasibility outcomes were summarized descriptively to assess recruitment, retention, data completeness, intervention fidelity, and participant engagement. These metrics were compared against prespecified progression criteria to determine whether the study design and procedures were suitable for a future RCT.

For exploratory purposes, descriptive analyses were used to summarize the study sample’s baseline demographic, clinical, and SDOH characteristics. Continuous variables are presented as means and SDs, and categorical variables as frequencies and percentages. Changes in anthropometric and cardiometabolic indicators at 3 and 6 months after MBS were described using summary statistics and graphical trends to estimate potential effect sizes and to confirm the absence of adverse outcomes.

Although this pilot study was not powered for hypothesis testing, exploratory comparisons were conducted to examine patterns in excess weight loss by participant characteristics. These analyses included nonparametric methods (Wilcoxon signed-rank and Fisher exact tests) and random-effects models for repeated measures to explore within-participant changes over time. Results were interpreted descriptively to guide selection of candidate outcome measures for a future trial rather than to infer efficacy. All analyses were performed using SAS (version 9.4; SAS Institute).


Participant Characteristics

Summary descriptive statistics are available in Table 1.

Table 1. Participant characteristics before metabolic and bariatric surgery (N=29).
Descriptive characteristicsParticipants
Age (y), mean (SD)15.9 (1.1)
Age (y), n (%)
13‐1619 (65.5)
17‐1810 (34.5)
Sex, n (%)
Female22 (75.9)
Male7 (24.1)
Race and ethnicity, n (%)
Non-Hispanic White4 (13.8)
Non-Hispanic Black11 (37.9)
Hispanic13 (44.8)
Other1 (3.4)
Weight (kg), mean (SD)135.0 (22.1)
BMI (kg/m2), mean (SD; range)47.8 (7.3; 36.9‐62.4)
Social determinants of health (positive), n (%)
Food insecurity4 (13.8)
Health literacy challenges5 (17.2)
Inadequate social support16 (55.2)
Transportation insecurity3 (10.3)
Financial insecurity5 (17.2)
Housing insecurity1 (3.4)

Feasibility Outcomes

A total of 29 adolescents enrolled in TeenLyft, exceeding the planned sample of 20 and achieving 145% of the recruitment target. Retention at 6 months was 72.4% (21/29), with these 21 participants completing all scheduled follow-up assessments, clinical appointments, and laboratory measures. Most attrition reflected missed follow-up visits or inability to complete scheduled assessments rather than adverse events or concerns related to the intervention. Data completeness exceeded the 70% threshold for anthropometric and biomarker collection. The intervention was delivered with 100% fidelity to planned content and schedule. Across both online platforms (YouTube and Facebook), 86 session modules were delivered, garnering 520 total views and an average watch time of 3.38 minutes per module, indicating consistent participant engagement. No major technology barriers or participant burden were reported. Informal feedback collected during clinical visits indicated that participants found the modules easy to navigate and relevant to their postoperative needs. All feasibility progression criteria were achieved (Table 2).

Table 2. Feasibility outcomes and progression criteria for the TeenLyft pilot study.
Feasibility domainDefinition or metricPrespecified targetObserved outcomeTarget met?
RecruitmentNumber and percent of participants enrolled compared to target (n=20 planned)≥80% of target enrollment29 enrolled (145% of target)Yes
RetentionParticipants completing 6-month follow-up assessments≥70%72.4% (21 of 29 enrolled participants); >100% (21 of planned 20 participants)Yes
Data completenessParticipants with complete anthropometric and laboratory data through 6 months≥70%72.4% (21 of 29 enrolled participants); >100% (21 of planned 20 participants)Yes
Intervention fidelitySessions delivered as planned (video content and schedule)≥90%100% delivered as plannedYes
Participant engagementOnline module views and average watch time (YouTube and Facebook)Descriptive only520 total views; 3.38-min average watch timeN/Aa
AcceptabilityInformal feedback on ease of use and relevanceQualitative assessmentParticipants reported that the content was easy to navigate and relevantPositive

aN/A: not applicable.

Exploratory Clinical and Safety Outcomes

Exploratory analyses of weight and cardiometabolic indicators were conducted to confirm that the intervention was not associated with harm and to estimate potential effect sizes for future studies. From baseline to 6 months after MBS, participants exhibited expected postoperative improvements, including decreases in mean weight from 136.1 (SD 28.0) kg to 95.7 (SD 15.9) kg and mean BMI from 48.3 (SD 8.3) kg/m² to 33.3 (SD 4.5) kg/m², as well as decreases in BMI percentile and z score. Systolic blood pressure and HbA1c showed modest decreases, while diastolic blood pressure, fasting glucose, and lipid profiles remained stable (Table 3). These trends are consistent with anticipated post-MBS trajectories and suggest that participation in TeenLyft did not adversely affect expected surgical outcomes.

Table 3. Anthropometric and cardiometabolic biomarker change from before metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) to 3 and 6 months after MBS (n=21).
OutcomeBefore MBS, mean (SD)3 months after MBS, mean (SD)6 months after MBS, mean (SD)P value
Anthropometric measures
 Weight (kg)136.1 (28.0)110.3 (15.7)95.7 (15.9)<.001a
 BMI (kg/m2)48.3 (8.3)38.4 (5.6)33.3 (4.5)<.001
 BMI percentile99.7 (0.7)98.5 (1.5)96.5 (2.8)<.001b
 BMI z score3.7 (1.2)2.4 (0.5)1.9 (0.4)<.001a
Cardiometabolic outcomesc
 Systolic blood pressure (mm Hg)125.4 (14.3)119.2 (11.8)117.6 (13.6).04
 Diastolic blood pressure (mm Hg)71.4 (10.3)69.1 (11.2)66.4 (8.6).17
 Glucose (mg/dL)99.5 (35.4)86.3 (5.5)88.0 (7.6).31
 Hemoglobin A1c (%)5.7 (1.2)4.9 (0.1)5.1 (0.3).049
 Total cholesterol (mg/dL)151.2 (29.6)0d146.8 (23.7).59
 High-density lipoprotein cholesterol (mg/dL)39.6 (7.1)043.2 (9.0).10
 Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (mg/dL)90.4 (25.7)086.2 (24.5).57
 Triglycerides (mg/dL)106.8 (49.1)087.4 (21.1).12

aMultiple comparison testing using Tukey approach showed statistically significant differences between before MBS and 3 months after MBS and before MBS and 6 months after MBS, but no statistical difference between 3 and 6 months after MBS.

bTukey comparison showed statistically significant differences across all time points.

cLipid profiles were only collected at 6 months after MBS.

dThree-month lipid results are not summarized because data were available for only one participant, precluding calculation of an SD.

Exploratory Patterns in Excess Weight Loss

Although the study was not powered for hypothesis testing, exploratory comparisons were conducted to describe patterns in excess weight loss (EWL) by participant characteristics. Adolescents achieving EWL >50% tended to be older and more likely to be female compared with those with EWL ≤50%. No clear differences were observed by presurgery BMI or SDOH variables (Table 4). These patterns are provided descriptively to guide refinement of subgroup analyses and sample size planning for a future randomized trial.

Table 4. Comparison of excess weight loss (EWL) at 6 months among adolescents who participated in TeenLyfta.
VariablesEWL >50% (n=9)EWL ≤50% (n=12)P valueb
Age (y), mean (SD)16.8 (0.7)15.3 (1.1).008
Sex, n (%)
 Female4 (44.4)0 (0).006
 Male5 (55.6)12 (100)
Race and ethnicity, n (%).06
 Hispanic or Latino7 (77.8)7 (58.3)
 Non-Hispanic Black0 (0)4 (33.3)
 Non-Hispanic White2 (22.2)0 (0)
 Other0 (0)1 (8.3)
Presurgery BMI, mean (SD)48.9 (7.6)44.1 (5.3).19
Food insecurity, n (%).40
 No1 (33.3)3 (100)
 Yes2 (66.7)0 (0)

aThis pilot study was not powered for hypothesis testing; all comparisons are descriptive and intended to inform outcome selection for future trials.

bComparisons between groups (EWL >50% vs ≤50%) were evaluated using Wilcoxon signed-rank and Fisher exact tests, as appropriate.


Principal Findings

This pilot study primarily evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, and safety of implementing TeenLyft, a virtual lifestyle support intervention, for adolescents undergoing MBS. The study demonstrated high recruitment, retention, and engagement, with all predefined feasibility progression criteria achieved. Recruitment feasibility was particularly strong, with enrollment exceeding the funded target (29 vs 20 participants), suggesting both high interest and successful clinic integration. This overenrollment further supports the feasibility of scaling up TeenLyft for a larger randomized trial. Participants reported the program to be accessible, relevant, and easy to use, and the intervention was delivered with full fidelity and no technological barriers. Collectively, these findings confirm that TeenLyft is a feasible and acceptable adjunct to standard adolescent MBS care and can be scaled for evaluation in a larger randomized trial.

Exploratory clinical and safety outcomes were collected to verify that participation in TeenLyft was not associated with adverse effects and to generate preliminary effect-size estimates for future research. As expected, participants experienced reductions in weight, BMI, and systolic blood pressure, along with modest improvements in HbA1c over the first 6 months after surgery. Fasting glucose and lipid profiles remained stable. These trends align with previously reported outcomes for adolescent MBS cohorts [36-46], suggesting that the addition of TeenLyft did not negatively influence expected surgical results. Importantly, these findings support the safety of integrating structured behavioral support into postoperative care.

Although exploratory patterns suggested that older adolescents experienced greater EWL than younger participants and that male participants exhibited smaller reductions, the small sample size precludes firm conclusions. These patterns are consistent with prior literature indicating potential age- and sex-related differences in short-term postoperative outcomes [37-41]. Similarly, while SDOH were not strongly associated with weight outcomes, trends such as higher food insecurity among those with greater EWL highlight complex resilience factors that warrant exploration in future work [47-50].

Psychosocial outcomes were not included as formal quantitative end points in this pilot feasibility study, but psychosocial experiences have been examined within the broader TeenLyft research program [51]. Prior qualitative work identified the importance of motivation, social support, body image, weight stigma, and mental health throughout the adolescent MBS journey. Consistent with those findings, participants in the present study described perceived improvements in self-confidence, body image, motivation, and emotional well-being following surgery and participation in TeenLyft [51,52]. Future randomized trials should incorporate validated psychosocial measures to more comprehensively evaluate both benefits and potential unintended consequences of behavioral support interventions following adolescent MBS.

These feasibility findings reinforce the value of integrating digital, flexible support into adolescent MBS pathways. Online engagement through TeenLyft modules demonstrates that adolescents are willing to participate in brief, accessible, and self-directed educational content alongside clinical care. This approach may help maintain continuity of behavioral reinforcement between visits and facilitate equitable access to postoperative support, key priorities emphasized in the AAP’s guidance on comprehensive obesity treatment [3,19].

Limitations and Future Directions

This study has several limitations. The small sample size, single-site design, and 6-month follow-up limit generalizability and preclude assessment of long-term outcomes. The relatively short follow-up period is particularly important given that obesity is a chronic disease requiring long-term management. While the first 6 months following MBS are characterized by rapid weight loss and high clinical engagement, longer-term outcomes may be influenced by changes in adherence, psychosocial factors, nutritional challenges, use of antiobesity medications, or the need for additional surgical or medical interventions. Future studies should evaluate whether behavioral support interventions such as TeenLyft contribute to sustained weight management and health outcomes beyond the early postoperative period. Additionally, the absence of a control group was intentional and appropriate for a feasibility study but prevents direct evaluation of comparative effectiveness. Nonetheless, observed weight and cardiometabolic outcomes were consistent with published benchmarks for MBS in adolescents [42-47], indicating that TeenLyft did not compromise expected clinical benefits. Future studies should include a larger, more diverse sample, extend follow-up duration, and incorporate quantitative engagement metrics to assess dose-response relationships between participation and outcomes. A randomized design comparing MBS alone versus MBS plus TeenLyft will be essential to determine the program’s added value beyond feasibility and safety.

Conclusions

TeenLyft demonstrated high feasibility, acceptability, and safety as a virtual adjunct to adolescent MBS care. The program achieved or exceeded all predefined feasibility criteria and showed no evidence of harm to expected postoperative outcomes. These findings provide critical groundwork for a fully powered RCT to assess the effectiveness, cost, and long-term sustainability of integrating structured, technology-based lifestyle support into standard adolescent MBS care.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the participants and their families for their valuable contributions to this work.

No generative AI tools were used in the writing, analysis, interpretation, editing, or preparation of this manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (grant R21HD105129). The funding source had no involvement in this work.

Data Availability

Deidentified data from this study are not available in a public archive. Deidentified data from this study will be made available (as allowable according to institutional review board standards) upon reasonable request by emailing the corresponding author. Analytic code used to conduct the analyses presented in this study are not available in a public archive. They may be available upon reasonable request by emailing the corresponding author. Some materials used to conduct the study are available in a public archive: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05393570) [53].

Authors' Contributions

SEM was responsible for the conception and design of the study and was the executive coordinator of the project. SEM and MA were responsible for the first draft. FGQ was the lead metabolic and bariatric surgeon on the project. MSM, JMF, and RB led the data coordination components, including survey operation, coordination of quantitative and qualitative data acquisition, and logistics. MAA was responsible for oversight of all qualitative study components. JMF, RB, and SN performed qualitative procedures and analysis. SEB, AW, BRC, and FGQ provided clinical expertise and oversight of all aspects of the study. SEM and FDA led all statistical analyses and table and figure design. JMF and RB led all project coordination efforts. All authors contributed to participant recruitment, data acquisition, and quality control. All authors had full access to all study data, contributed to data interpretation, critically reviewed the first draft, approved the final version, and agreed to be accountable for the work.

Conflicts of Interest

FGQ is a consultant at Ethicon Industries. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

  1. Kumar S, Kelly AS. Review of childhood obesity: from epidemiology, etiology, and comorbidities to clinical assessment and treatment. Mayo Clin Proc. Feb 2017;92(2):251-265. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  2. Messiah SE, Ernest DK, Atem FD, et al. Metabolic and bariatric surgery utilization in the era of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists among adolescents versus adults. J Pediatr. Jul 2025;282:114564. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  3. Armstrong SC, Bolling CF, Michalsky MP, Reichard KW, Section on Obesity, Section on Surgery. Pediatric metabolic and bariatric surgery: evidence, barriers, and best practices. Pediatrics. Dec 2019;144(6):e20193223. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  4. Kelly AS, Barlow SE, Rao G, et al. Severe obesity in children and adolescents: identification, associated health risks, and treatment approaches: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. Oct 8, 2013;128(15):1689-1712. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  5. Rank M, Siegrist M, Wilks DC, et al. The cardio-metabolic risk of moderate and severe obesity in children and adolescents. J Pediatr. Jul 2013;163(1):137-142. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  6. Golden SH, Brown A, Cauley JA, et al. Health disparities in endocrine disorders: biological, clinical, and nonclinical factors--an Endocrine Society scientific statement. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Sep 2012;97(9):E1579-E1639. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  7. Pratt LA, Brody DJ. Depression and obesity in the U.S. adult household population, 2005-2010. NCHS Data Brief. Oct 2014;(167):1-8. [Medline]
  8. The state of obesity 2019: better policies for a healthier America. Trust for America’s Health URL: https://www.tfah.org/report-details/the-state-of-obesity-better-policies-for-a-healthier-america/ [Accessed 2026-09-23]
  9. Xu J, Murphy SL, Kochanek KD, Arias E. Mortality in the United States, 2015. NCHS Data Brief. Dec 2016;(267):1-8. [Medline]
  10. Wang YC, McPherson K, Marsh T, Gortmaker SL, Brown M. Health and economic burden of the projected obesity trends in the USA and the UK. Lancet. Aug 27, 2011;378(9793):815-825. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  11. Ryder JR, Fox CK, Kelly AS. Treatment options for severe obesity in the pediatric population: current limitations and future opportunities. Obesity (Silver Spring). Jun 2018;26(6):951-960. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  12. Prado G, Fernandez A, St George SM, et al. Results of a family-based intervention promoting healthy weight strategies in overweight Hispanic adolescents and parents: an RCT. Am J Prev Med. Nov 2020;59(5):658-668. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  13. Rifas-Shiman SL, Taveras EM, Gortmaker SL, et al. Two-year follow-up of a primary care-based intervention to prevent and manage childhood obesity: the High Five for Kids study. Pediatr Obes. Jun 2017;12(3):e24-e27. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  14. Danielsson P, Kowalski J, Ekblom Ö, Marcus C. Response of severely obese children and adolescents to behavioral treatment. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. Dec 2012;166(12):1103-1108. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  15. Pratt JS, Browne A, Browne NT, et al. ASMBS pediatric metabolic and bariatric surgery guidelines, 2018. Surg Obes Relat Dis. Jul 2018;14(7):882-901. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  16. Messiah SE, Lopez-Mitnik G, Winegar D, et al. Changes in weight and co-morbidities among adolescents undergoing bariatric surgery: 1-year results from the Bariatric Outcomes Longitudinal Database. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013;9(4):503-513. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  17. Inge TH, Zeller MH, Jenkins TM, et al. Perioperative outcomes of adolescents undergoing bariatric surgery: the Teen-Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery (Teen-LABS) study. JAMA Pediatr. Jan 2014;168(1):47-53. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  18. Olbers T, Beamish AJ, Gronowitz E, et al. Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in adolescents with severe obesity (AMOS): a prospective, 5-year, Swedish nationwide study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. Mar 2017;5(3):174-183. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  19. Armstrong SC. AAP guidance calls for better access to bariatric surgery for teens with severe obesity. American Academy of Pediatrics. 2019. URL: https:/​/publications.​aap.org/​aapnews/​news/​6688/​AAP-guidance-calls-for-better-access-to-bariatric?autologincheck=redirected [Accessed 2026-09-23]
  20. Messiah SE, Xie L, de la Cruz-Muñoz N, Lipshultz SE. Use of metabolic and bariatric surgery among US youth. JAMA Pediatr. Aug 1, 2023;177(8):856-857. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  21. Messiah SE, Ernest DK, Cruz-Muñoz N, Lipshultz SE, Barlow SE. Reply. J Pediatr. Sep 2025;284:114616. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  22. Messiah SE, Sacher PM, Yudkin J, Qureshi FG, Hoelscher DM, Barlow SE. Partnering support interventions with bariatric surgery to maximize health outcomes in adolescents with severe obesity. Obesity (Silver Spring). Nov 2019;27(11):1784-1795. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  23. What is the National DPP? Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2024. URL: https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes-prevention/programs/what-is-the-national-dpp.html [Accessed 2026-09-23]
  24. About the Lifestyle Change Program. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2024. URL: https:/​/www.​cdc.gov/​diabetes-prevention/​lifestyle-change-program/​lifestyle-change-program-details.​html [Accessed 2026-09-23]
  25. Becoming a Lifestyle Change Program provider. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2024. URL: https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes-prevention/php/program-provider/index.html [Accessed 2026-09-23]
  26. Ackermann RT, Finch EA, Brizendine E, Zhou H, Marrero DG. Translating the Diabetes Prevention Program into the community. The DEPLOY pilot study. Am J Prev Med. Oct 2008;35(4):357-363. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  27. Allicock MA, Francis JM, Neti S, et al. Evaluation of a behavioral intervention to support adolescents undergoing bariatric surgery using the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Sci Rep. May 18, 2026;16(1):22468. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  28. Kriska AM, Devaraj SM, Kramer K, et al. The likely underestimated impact of lifestyle intervention: Diabetes Prevention Program translation examples. Am J Prev Med. Apr 2022;62(4):e248-e254. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  29. Allicock MA, King R, Francis J, et al. Lifestyle intervention and support preferences to maximize health outcomes in adolescent bariatric surgery patients. J Clin Transl Sci. 2024;8(1):e127. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  30. Misserian M, Wheelington A, King R, et al. Adaptation of a standardized lifestyle intervention to maximize health outcomes in adolescent metabolic and bariatric surgery patients. J Transl Med. Feb 23, 2024;22(1):197. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  31. Weight-loss (metabolic & bariatric) surgery. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. URL: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/weight-management/bariatric-surgery [Accessed 2026-09-23]
  32. Williams S, Hill K, Mathew MS, Messiah SE. Disparities in patient family social determinants of health in a large urban pediatric health system. J Pediatr Health Care. 2024;38(2):172-183. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  33. Jetelina KK, Rodriguez P, Oke OK, et al. Factors influencing the implementation of social determinants of health screening and referral processes in pediatric settings serving medically complex patients. J Appl Res Child. 2020;11(1). [CrossRef]
  34. Social determinants of health. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. URL: https://health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-and-data/social-determinants-health [Accessed 2026-09-23]
  35. Vartanian LR. Development and validation of a brief version of the Stigmatizing Situations Inventory. Obes Sci Pract. Dec 2015;1(2):119-125. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  36. Cuevas AG, Williams DR. Perceived discrimination and health: integrative findings. In: The Oxford Handbook of Integrative Health Science. Oxford University Press; 2018:443-456. [CrossRef]
  37. Ogle SB, Dewberry LC, Jenkins TM, et al. Outcomes of bariatric surgery in older versus younger adolescents. Pediatrics. Mar 2021;147(3):e2020024182. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  38. Alqahtani A, Elahmedi M, Qahtani AR. Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy in children younger than 14 years: refuting the concerns. Ann Surg. Feb 2016;263(2):312-319. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  39. Kennedy-Dalby A, Adam S, Ammori BJ, Syed AA. Weight loss and metabolic outcomes of bariatric surgery in men versus women - a matched comparative observational cohort study. Eur J Intern Med. Dec 2014;25(10):922-925. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  40. Hider AM, Bonham A, Carlin A, et al. Association of sex differences on weight loss and complications following bariatric surgery. J Surg Res. Jul 2024;299:359-365. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  41. Shu J, Zhu T, Xiong S, et al. Sex dimorphism in the effect and predictors of weight loss after sleeve gastrectomy. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023;14:1333051. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  42. Chalklin CG, Ryan Harper EG, Beamish AJ. Metabolic and bariatric surgery in adolescents. Curr Obes Rep. Jun 2021;10(2):61-69. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  43. Beamish AJ, Ryan Harper E, Järvholm K, Janson A, Olbers T. Long-term outcomes following adolescent metabolic and bariatric surgery. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Aug 18, 2023;108(9):2184-2192. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  44. Stanford FC, Mushannen T, Cortez P, et al. Comparison of short and long-term outcomes of metabolic and bariatric surgery in adolescents and adults. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2020;11:157. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  45. Kochis M, Bizimana C, Stetson A, et al. Metabolic and bariatric surgery outcomes in adolescents: a single center’s seven-year update. Surg Endosc. Nov 2024;38(11):6908-6917. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  46. Schiavon CA, Bhatt DL, Ikeoka D, et al. Three-year outcomes of bariatric surgery in patients with obesity and hypertension: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Intern Med. Nov 3, 2020;173(9):685-693. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  47. Michalsky MP, Inge TH, Jenkins TM, et al. Cardiovascular risk factors after adolescent bariatric surgery. Pediatrics. Feb 2018;141(2):e20172485. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  48. Capoccia D, Milani I, Colangeli L, Parrotta ME, Leonetti F, Guglielmi V. Social, cultural and ethnic determinants of obesity: from pathogenesis to treatment. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2025;35(6):103901. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  49. Stenberg E, Näslund I, Persson C, et al. The association between socioeconomic factors and weight loss 5 years after gastric bypass surgery. Int J Obes (Lond). Nov 2020;44(11):2279-2290. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  50. Kapera O, Xie L, Marroquin E, et al. Association of social support and metabolic and bariatric surgery completion among racially and ethnically diverse patients. Obes Surg. Aug 2024;34(8):2755-2763. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  51. Wheelington A, Ernest D, Xie L, et al. Relationship between weight bias internalization and health-related quality of life among adolescents seeking metabolic and bariatric surgery. Obes Surg. Mar 2025;35(3):755-762. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  52. Allicock MA, Francis JM, Braxton R, et al. Motivators and barriers to seeking metabolic and bariatric surgery among adolescents: a qualitative study. Obes Sci Pract. 2025;11(1):e70040. [CrossRef] [Medline]
  53. Lifestyle improvement for teens with bariatric surgery (LIFT). National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05393570 [Accessed 2026-09-23]


‎
AAP: American Academy of Pediatrics
CONSORT: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials
DPP-GLB: Diabetes Prevention Program Group Lifestyle Balance
EWL: excess weight loss
HbA1c: hemoglobin A1c
MBS: metabolic and bariatric surgery
RCT: randomized controlled trial
RE-AIM: reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance
SDOH: social determinants of health
TREND: Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Nonrandomized Designs


Edited by Matthew Balcarras; submitted 31.Oct.2025; peer-reviewed by Diego Guerrero-Magaña, Faith Heeren; final revised version received 14.Jun.2026; accepted 16.Jun.2026; published 05.Oct.2026.

Copyright

© Sarah E Messiah, Jackson M Francis, Folefac D Atem, Matthew Sunil Mathew, Alicia Wheelington, Maral Misserian, Sitapriya Neti, Rashon Braxton, Bethany R Cartwright, Faisal G Qureshi, Sarah E Barlow, Marlyn A Alicock. Originally published in JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting (https://pediatrics.jmir.org), 5.Oct.2026.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://pediatrics.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.