Digital Support for Patients Undergoing Bariatric Surgery: Narrative Review of the Roles and Challenges of Online Forums
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The internet has become an important medium within health care, giving patients the opportunity to search for information, guidance, and support to manage their health and well-being needs. Online forums and internet-based platforms appear to have changed the way many patients undergoing bariatric surgery view and engage with their health, before and after weight loss surgery. Given that significant health improvements result from sustained weight loss, ensuring patient adherence to recommended preoperative and postoperative guidance is critical for bariatric surgery success. In a patient cohort with high information needs preoperatively, and notoriously high attrition rates postoperatively, online forums may present an underutilized method of support. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to conduct a narrative review focusing on the developing roles that online forums can play for patients with bariatric conditions preoperatively and postoperatively. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in October-November 2019 across 5 electronic databases: Scopus, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and MEDLINE. Qualitative or mixed methods studies were included if they evaluated patients undergoing bariatric surgery (or bariatric surgery health care professionals) engaging with, using, or analyzing online discussion forums or social media platforms. Using thematic analysis, themes were developed from coding patterns within the data to identify the roles and challenges of online forums for patients undergoing bariatric surgery. RESULTS: A total of 8 studies were included in this review, with 5 themes emerging around (1) managing expectations of a new life; (2) decision making and signposting; (3) supporting information seeking; (4) facilitating connectedness: peer-to-peer social and emotional support; and (5) enabling accessibility and connectivity with health care professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Online forums could offer one solution to improving postoperative success by supporting and motivating patients. Future research should consider how best to design and moderate online forums for maximal effectiveness and the sharing of accurate information. The surgical multidisciplinary team may consider recommendations of online peer-support networks to complement care for patients throughout their surgical journey.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".