Bariatric Surgery Recipients' Needs and Perspectives on Maintaining Long-Term Health and Well-Being
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Long-term success remains a challenge for many who have undergone bariatric surgery, which suggests that there may be important, and as of yet, unmet needs of such recipients. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to gain an understanding of what bariatric surgery recipients perceive that they need to best support their long-term health and well-being in the province (Ontario, Canada) and thereafter internationally. Methods: A questionnaire, taking 30–45 min to complete, was designed in concert with members of the target audience and distributed via support group administrators. Descriptive statistics of participants' demographic/clinical background were analyzed for group comparisons by using a chi-square test and a two-sample t-test (p < 0.05). Open-ended responses were analyzed by using inductive content analysis and reviewed independently by the authors, who discussed any discrepancies in emerging themes until reaching an agreement. Results: One hundred and nineteen (59 provincial; 60 international) respondents completed the questionnaire. Themes for what was the most useful included encouragement from family, friends, bariatric team members, and peers. Access to immediate follow-up appointments after surgery for nutrition-specific and general postsurgery concerns was reported as needed but not received. Recommendations to address excess skin and creating a mentorship program were proposed. Conclusions: This study provides an understanding of the needs and experiences of bariatric surgery recipients, which may help clinicians to address gaps in bariatric programing, provide more effective treatment, and help to manage weight among surgery recipients for long-term health and well-being.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".