ArticleClinical obesity2025
How well does it fit? Process evaluation of a multidisciplinary pre- and postoperative metabolic bariatric surgery support programme: A patients' perspective.
Article in Clinical obesity, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multidisciplinary support can help patients improve health and cope with changes after metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS). However, there is uncertainty regarding what intervention components, delivery methods and intensity are effective. To understand how intervention effects are achieved, we performed a process evaluation of a 15-session pre- and post-MBS programme comprising medical, dietary and psychological interventions delivered via group sessions until 9 months postsurgery. The evaluation examined programme relevance, perceived fit and practicability ('appropriateness') and satisfaction with content and delivery ('acceptability'). Interviews (n = 11) and focus groups (n = 2) were performed with 21 patients in different programme phases. Programme fidelity was assessed using administrative data on attendance in 1.396 patients. Presurgery, practicing with postoperative recommendations and multiple social components, was described as useful. Although participants found several postoperative components helpful (e.g. meal planning), the perceived fit was lower due to group delivery, session spacing and varying needs. Attended programme time postsurgery was lower than presurgery. Individual needs varied in terms of support intensity and type, and by gender, age and surgery type. Participants recommended greater session spacing, as maintaining behaviours >1 year postsurgery was expected to be most challenging. Participants requested additional information on negative lived experiences, exercise and coping with various postoperative changes. Programme fit can be improved by taking patients' varying needs into account in a flexible programme, with a duration beyond the first postoperative year, and more attention to negative lived experiences, exercise and coping with changes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.