Contraceptive counselling in 3 Canadian bariatric surgery clinics: a multicentre qualitative study of the experiences of patients and health care providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests an increase in fertility and unintended pregnancy after bariatric surgery; contraceptive counselling, traditionally defined as a discussion of contraception options, is therefore an important facet of surgical planning. Our aim was to investigate patient experiences of contraceptive counselling, the attitudes of health care providers (HCPs) toward contraceptive counselling, and their perceptions of the facilitators and barriers to contraceptive counselling in bariatric surgery clinics. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using semistructured interviews with patients and HCPs at publicly funded Canadian bariatric surgery clinics from May 2018 to February 2019. We recruited bariatric HCPs from across Canada using snowball sampling, and recruited patient participants from 3 Canadian bariatric surgery programs. Patient participants had to be at risk of pregnancy in the postoperative period, aged 18-45 years old and have completed all preoperative counselling. We included HCPs who delivered care in a publicly funded, hospital-affiliated bariatric surgery clinic in Canada. Team members analyzed transcripts thematically. RESULTS: = 11). Our analysis identified 3 separate themes: missing information in contraception counselling, making assumptions about who would benefit from counselling and strategies for improving contraception counselling. We found patients and HCPs wanted more resources on the safety and efficacy of contraceptive methods. INTERPRETATION: Our study showed a need for structured contraceptive counselling in bariatric surgery clinics. Information resources that support patients and HCPs who provide counselling are needed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".