4.6 Review

'The rollercoaster of follow-up care' after bariatric surgery: a rapid review and qualitative synthesis

Journal

OBESITY REVIEWS
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages 88-107

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/obr.12764

Keywords

Bariatric surgery; follow-up; qualitative; review

Funding

  1. National Institute for Health Research Academic Clinical Lectureship
  2. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
  3. RONA MARSDEN research fund
  4. Fakenham Medical Practice

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Benefits of bariatric surgery for obesity related comorbidities are well established. However, in the longer term, patients can become vulnerable to procedure specific problems, experience weight regain and continue to need monitoring and management of comorbidities. Effective longer term follow-up is vital due to these complex needs post-surgery. Current guidance recommends annual long-term follow-up after bariatric surgery. However, attendance can be low, and failure to attend is associated with poorer outcomes. Understanding patients' experiences and needs is central to the delivery of effective care. This rapid review has synthesized the current qualitative literature on patient experiences of healthcare professional (HCP) led follow-up from 12 months after bariatric surgery. A recurring theme was the need for more and extended follow-up care, particularly psychological support. Enablers to attending follow-up care were patient self-efficacy as well as HCP factors such as a non-judgemental attitude, knowledge and continuity of care. Barriers included unrealistic patient expectations and perceived lack of HCP expertise. Some preferences were expressed including patient initiated access to HCPs and more information preoperatively to prepare for potential post-surgery issues. Insights gained from this work will help identify areas for improvement to care in order to optimize longer term outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available