MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212836908 · doi:10.2196/29782

Designing Digital Health Technology to Support Patients Before and After Bariatric Surgery: Qualitative Study Exploring Patient Desires, Suggestions, and Reflections to Support Lifestyle Behavior Change

2021· article· en· W3212836908 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anna Robinson, Andy Husband, Robert Slight, Sarah P. Slight

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBariatric Surgery and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNewcastle University
KeywordsThematic analysisQualitative researchMedicinePerioperativeDigital healthHealth careReflexivityNursingSurgerySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A patient's capability, motivation, and opportunity to change their lifestyle are determinants of successful outcomes following bariatric surgery. Lifestyle changes before and after surgery, including improved dietary intake and physical activity levels, have been associated with greater postsurgical weight loss and improved long-term health. Integrating patient-centered digital technologies within the bariatric surgical pathway could form part of an innovative strategy to promote and sustain healthier behaviors, and provide holistic patient support, to improve surgical success. Previous research focused on implementing digital technologies and measuring effectiveness in surgical cohorts. However, there is limited work concerning the desires, suggestions, and reflections of patients undergoing bariatric surgery. This qualitative investigation explores patients' perspectives on technology features that would support behavior changes during the pre- and postoperative periods, to potentially maintain long-term healthy lifestyles following surgery. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand how digital technologies can be used to support patient care during the perioperative journey to improve weight loss outcomes and surgical success, focusing on what patients want from digital technologies, how they want to use them, and when they would be of most benefit during their surgical journey. METHODS: Patients attending bariatric surgery clinics in one hospital in the North of England were invited to participate. Semistructured interviews were conducted with purposively sampled pre- and postoperative patients to discuss lifestyle changes and the use of digital technologies to complement their care. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Reflexive thematic analysis enabled the development of themes from the data. Ethical approval was obtained from the National Health Service Health Research Authority. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients were interviewed (preoperative phase: 40% (8/20); postoperative phase: 60% (12/20). A total of 4 overarching themes were developed and related to the optimization of technology functionality. These centered on providing tailored content and support; facilitating self-monitoring and goal setting; delivering information in an accessible, trusted, and usable manner; and meeting patient information-seeking and engagement needs during the surgical pathway. Functionalities that delivered personalized feedback and postoperative follow-up were considered beneficial. Individualized goal setting functionality could support a generation of digitally engaged patients with bariatric conditions as working toward achievable targets was deemed an effective strategy for motivating behavior change. The creation of digital package of care checklists between patients and clinicians was a novel finding from this study. CONCLUSIONS: Perceptions of patients undergoing bariatric surgery validated the integration of digital technologies within the surgical pathway, offering enhanced connectedness and support. Recommendations are made relating to the design, content, and functionality of digital interventions to best address the needs of this cohort. These findings have the potential to influence the co-design and integration of person-centered, perioperative technologies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicBariatric Surgery and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207