“If you're offered help, take it”: A qualitative study examining bariatric patients' experience of <scp>telephone‐based</scp> cognitive behavioural therapy
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.
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 | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".