A Comparison of Health Professionals’ and Patients’ Views of the Importance of Outcomes of Bariatric Surgery
General Information
Abstract:
Background: A comprehensive evaluation of bariatric surgery is required to inform decision-making. This will include measures of benefit and risk. It is possible that stakeholders involved with surgery value these outcomes differently, although this has not previously been explored. This study aimed to investigate and compare how professionals and patients prioritise outcomes of bariatric surgery.
Methods: Systematic reviews and qualitative interviews created an exhaustive list of outcomes. This informed the development of a 130-item questionnaire, structured in four sections (complications of surgery; clinical effectiveness; signs, symptoms, and other measures; quality of life). Health professionals and patients rated the importance of each item on a 1–9 scale. Items rated 8–9 by at least 70 % of the participants were considered prioritised. Items prioritised in each section were compared between professionals and patients and interrater agreement assessed using kappa statistics (?).
Results: One hundred sixty-eight out of four hundred fifty-nine professionals (36.6 %) and 90/465 patients (19.4 %) completed the questionnaire. Professionals and patients prioritised 18 and 25 items, respectively, with 10 overlapping items and 23 discordant items (? 0.363). Examples of items prioritised by both included ‘diabetes’ and ‘leakage from bowel joins’. Examples of discordant items included ‘re-admission rates’ (professionals only) and ‘excess skin’ (patients only). Poor agreement was seen in the ‘quality of life’ section (0 overlapping items, 8 discordant, ? -0.036).
Conclusions: Although there was some overlap of outcomes prioritised by professionals and patients, there were important differences. We recommend that the views of all relevant health professionals and patients are considered when deciding on outcomes to evaluate bariatric surgery.
Methods: Systematic reviews and qualitative interviews created an exhaustive list of outcomes. This informed the development of a 130-item questionnaire, structured in four sections (complications of surgery; clinical effectiveness; signs, symptoms, and other measures; quality of life). Health professionals and patients rated the importance of each item on a 1–9 scale. Items rated 8–9 by at least 70 % of the participants were considered prioritised. Items prioritised in each section were compared between professionals and patients and interrater agreement assessed using kappa statistics (?).
Results: One hundred sixty-eight out of four hundred fifty-nine professionals (36.6 %) and 90/465 patients (19.4 %) completed the questionnaire. Professionals and patients prioritised 18 and 25 items, respectively, with 10 overlapping items and 23 discordant items (? 0.363). Examples of items prioritised by both included ‘diabetes’ and ‘leakage from bowel joins’. Examples of discordant items included ‘re-admission rates’ (professionals only) and ‘excess skin’ (patients only). Poor agreement was seen in the ‘quality of life’ section (0 overlapping items, 8 discordant, ? -0.036).
Conclusions: Although there was some overlap of outcomes prioritised by professionals and patients, there were important differences. We recommend that the views of all relevant health professionals and patients are considered when deciding on outcomes to evaluate bariatric surgery.
Aim:
To investigate and compare how professionals and patients prioritise outcomes of bariatric surgery.
Authors:
Karen D. Coulman, Noah Howes, James Hopkins, Katie Whale, Katy Chalmers, Sara Brookes, Alex Nicholson, Jelena Savovic, Yasmin Ferguson, Amanda Owen-Smith, Jane Blazeby, On behalf of the By-Band-Sleeve Trial Management Group, Jane Blazeby, Richard Welbourn, James Byrne, Jenny Donovan, Barnaby C. Reeves, Sarah Wordsworth, Robert Andrews, Janice L. Thompson, Graziella Mazza, and Chris A. Rogers
Publication
Journal:
Obesity Surgery
Volume:
26
Issue:
11
Pages:
2738 - 2746
Year:
2016
DOI:
Further Study Information
Date:
Funding source(s):
Health Area
Disease Category
Endocrine & metabolic
Disease Name
Obesity
Target Population
Age Range
18 - 100
Sex
Either
Nature / type of Intervention
Surgery
Method(s)
Delphi process
Interview
Systematic review
Stakeholders Involved
Clinical experts
Consumers (patients)
Study investigators
Study Type
Patient perspectives
Systematic review of outcomes measured in trials
Systematic review of qualitative research
Related studies
- A Core Outcome Set for the Benefits and Adverse Events of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery: The BARIACT Project
- The patient perspective of bariatric surgery outcomes: Developing a 'core' set of patient-reported outcomes
- Outcome reporting in bariatric surgery: an in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set, the BARIACT Study
- The patient perspective of outcomes of bariatric surgery: The need for a ’core’ set of patient-reported outcomes.
- Patient-reported outcomes in bariatric surgery: a systematic review of standards of reporting
- The patient perspective of living with surgery for morbid obesity: Creating a patient 'core' outcome set, and investigating ways to improve follow-up care.
- Development of a core outcome set for bariatric surgery