Impact of a CBT psychotherapy group on post-operative bariatric patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychological difficulties for patients seeking bariatric surgery are greater and in the post-operative phase, a significant minority go on to experience significant psychosocial difficulties, increasing their risk of poorer post-operative adjustment and associated weight regain. 17 post-operative patients participated in an eight-week cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) based psychotherapy group at the Ottawa Hospital. A pre-post design with a 3-month follow-up investigated the impact of the group on emotional eating, general as well as obesity-specific adjustment, psychological distress, and attachment. There were significant and meaningful improvements in patients' level of psychological distress, perceived difficulties in their lives, and weight-related adjustment that were maintained at a 3-month follow-up period. Although statistical change was not significant, there were also meaningful improvements in emotional overeating and relationship anxiety and avoidance. The intervention also appeared to be acceptable to patients in that attendance and satisfaction were good. Findings suggest that a short-term CBT psychotherapy group led to significant and meaningful benefits in psychological wellbeing for post-surgical bariatric patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".