Patient Expectations of Bariatric and Body Contouring Surgery
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient expectations are important in bariatric and body contouring surgery because the goals include improvements in health-related quality of life, appearance, and body image. The aim of this study was to identify patient expectations along the weight loss journey and/or body contouring surgery. METHODS: This qualitative study took an interpretive description approach. Between September 2009 and February 2012, 49 patients were interviewed postbody contouring surgery. Data were analyzed using a line-by-line approach whereby expectations were identified and labeled as expected, unexpected, or neutral. Constant comparison was used to ensure coding was done consistently. Interviews continued until no new themes emerged. RESULTS: Participants described expectations according to appearance, health-related quality of life, and patient experience of care. Two areas stood out in terms of unmet expectations and included appearance and physical health, ie, recovery from body contouring surgery. Most participants, who underwent bariatric surgery, expected neither the extent of excess skin after weight loss nor how the excess skin would make them look and feel. For recovery, participants did not expect that it would be as long or as hard as it was in reality. CONCLUSIONS: A full understanding of outcomes and expectations for this patient population is needed to enhance patient education and improve shared medical decision making. Education materials should be informed by the collection of evidence-based patient-reported outcome information using measures such as the BODY-Q. A patient-reported outcome scale measuring patient expectations is needed for obese and 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it