‘What’s the point in extending your life if this is your life’: A qualitative exploration of pre-surgery, short-term and long-term responses to bariatric surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined experiences of weight, physical activity, diet, and quality of life of individuals prior to and following bariatric surgery. Twenty-seven people participated who represented three periods related to bariatric surgery: pre-surgery; short-term post-surgery (i.e., 1–2 years) and long-term post-surgery (i.e., 3–7 years). A qualitative descriptive design was adopted, with data collected through interviews and analysed using thematic analysis. Themes in the pre-surgery period were identified as follows: a) Growing up: Variation by family and ability, b) Weight gain: Transitions, traumas, and triggers; c) Perceptions of self: Hate, loathing, and worthlessness; d) Spiralling weight: Lack of control over vicious cycles of dieting and weight gain, and; e) Surgery: A final and essential lifeline. Short-term post-surgery themes were: a) Physical changes: Rapid weight loss and enhanced health versus hesitation and disappointment; b) Physical activity: Changes in engagement and perceptions despite ongoing barriers; c) Finding oneself: Increased emotional wellbeing, self-concept and confidence, and; d) Quality of life: Renewed physical capabilities and capacity but some continuing challenges. In the long-term following surgery, themes of: a) Weight plateau/regain: Disappointment and feelings of failure, and; b) Excess fat: Frustration and feelings of vulnerability emerged from the data. It is evident that participants go on an extended journey in the years before and after bariatric surgery and experience a range of both positive and negative outcomes. Overall, the findings highlight the importance of practitioners understanding individual’s overall journeys when seeking to help them lose weight and improve psychological health.
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 | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".