“If you're offered help, take it”: A qualitative study examining bariatric patients' experience of <scp>telephone‐based</scp> cognitive behavioural therapy
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
The increased recognition of patients' mental health needs after bariatric surgery has resulted in the emergence of accessible psychosocial interventions; however, there is a dearth of literature on patient experience and satisfaction with these interventions. We explored patients' perceptions and experiences of telephone-based cognitive behavioural therapy (Tele-CBT) in this qualitative study. Ten participants from the Toronto Western Hospital Bariatric Surgery Program in Toronto, Canada who completed the Tele-CBT (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02920112) were individually interviewed from November 2014 to June 2016 until thematic saturation occurred (ie, no more new coding groups emerged). Interviews were transcribed, independently coded, checked for discrepancies, and analysed using grounded theory. Four themes emerged: (1) participants were generally satisfied with Tele-CBT (eg, therapeutic alliance, resources provided, relevance of therapy to their own bariatric journey), (2) participants noticed emotional, cognitive, and behavioural changes following therapy, (3) the optimal time to deliver the Tele-CBT was when weight loss plateaued, generally at one-year post-surgery, and (4) participants found the telephone modality convenient. CBT was generally found to be helpful and the telephone format increased convenience and accessibility. Patients reported learning skills and receiving resources that could help them improve their well-being following bariatric surgery.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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