Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Obesity Surgery
Published in: Obesity Surgery 11/2016

Open Access 01-11-2016 | Original Contributions

A Comparison of Health Professionals’ and Patients’ Views of the Importance of 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, Jane Blazeby, Richard Welbourn, James Byrne, Jenny Donovan, Barnaby C. Reeves, Sarah Wordsworth, Robert Andrews, Janice L. Thompson, Graziella Mazza, Chris A. Rogers, On behalf of the By-Band-Sleeve Trial Management Group

Published in: Obesity Surgery | Issue 11/2016

Login to get access

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 (ĸ).

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 (ĸ 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, ĸ −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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Hopkins JC, Howes N, Chalmers K, et al. Outcome reporting in bariatric surgery: an in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set, the BARIACT study. Obes Rev. 2015;16(1):88–106.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Coulman KD, Abdelrahman T, Owen-Smith A, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in bariatric surgery: a systematic review of standards of reporting. Obes Rev. 2013;14(9):707–20.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Rothwell PM, McDowell Z, Wong CK, et al. Doctors and patients don’t agree: cross sectional study of patient’s and doctors’ perceptions and assessments of disability in multiple sclerosis. BMJ. 1997;314(7094):1580–3.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
4.
Kwoh CK, Ibrahim SA. Rheumatology patient and physician concordance with respect to important health and symptom status outcomes. Arthritis Rheum. 2001;45(4):372–7.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Kirwan JR, Minnock P, Adebajo A, et al. Patient perspective: fatigue as a recommended patient centered outcome measure in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2007;34(5):1174–7.PubMed
6.
Carr A, Hewlett S, Hughes R, et al. Rheumatology outcomes: the patient’s perspective. J Rheumatol. 2003;30(4):880–3.PubMed
7.
Janse AJ, Gemke RJ, Uiterwaal CS, et al. Quality of life: patients and doctors don’t always agree: a meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(7):653–61.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Potter S, Holcombe C, Ward JA, et al. Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery. Br J Surg. 2015;102(11):1360–71.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
Blazeby JM, Macefield R, Blencowe NS, et al. Core information set for oesophageal cancer surgery. Br J Surg. 2015;102(8):936–43.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Staniszewska S, Haywood KL, Brett J, et al. Patient and public involvement in patient-reported outcome measures: evolution not revolution. Patient. 2012;5(2):79–87.PubMedCrossRef
11.
12.
Hewlett S, De Wit M, Richards P, et al. Patients and professionals as research partners: challenges, practicalities, and benefits. Arthritis Rheum. 2006;55(4):676–80.PubMedCrossRef
13.
14.
15.
Blazeby J, Andrews R, Byrne J, Donovan J Reeves B, Roderick P, Rogers C, Welbourn R, Wordsworth S, Thompson J. HTA - 09/127/53: Gastric bypass, adjustable gastric banding or sleeve gastrectomy surgery to treat severe and complex obesity: a multi-centre randomised controlled trial (the By-Band-Sleeve study): http://​www.​nets.​nihr.​ac.​uk/​projects/​hta/​0912753. 2012 (Trial protocol).
16.
Coulman KD, Owen-Smith A, Andrews RC, et al. The patient perspective of bariatric surgery outcomes: developing a ‘core’ set of patient-reported outcomes. Obes Surg. 2014;24(8):1296 (abstract P.416).
17.
Coulman K, Owen-Smith A, Andrews R, et al. The patient perspective of outcomes of bariatric surgery: the need for a ‘core’ set of patient-reported outcomes. Br J Surg. 2013;100 Suppl 3:2–3 (abstract A06).
18.
Macefield RC, Jacobs M, Korfage IJ, et al. Developing core outcomes sets: methods for identifying and including patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Trials. 2014;15:49.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
19.
Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med. 2005;37(5):360–3.PubMed
20.
Stata/MP 13.1. StataCorp LP; 2013 (Statistical software programme).
21.
Groves RM. Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opin Q. 2006;70(5):646–75.CrossRef
22.
Welbourn R, Small P, Finlay I, Sareela A, Somers S, Mahawar K, et al. The United Kingdom National Bariatric Surgery Registry—2nd registry report. Henley-on-Thames: Dendrite Clinical Systems Ltd, 2014.
23.
24.
Lecube A, de Hollanda A, Calanas A, et al. Trends in bariatric surgery in Spain in the twenty-first century: baseline results and 1-month follow up of the RICIBA, a national registry. Obes Surg. 2015. doi:10.​1007/​s11695-015-2001-3.
25.
Mechanick JI, Youdim A, Jones DB, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the perioperative nutritional, metabolic, and nonsurgical support of the bariatric surgery patient—2013 update: cosponsored by American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, The Obesity Society, and American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery. Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2013;9(2):159–91.PubMedCrossRef
26.
National confidential enquiry into patient outcome and death (NCEPOD). Too lean a service? A review of the care of patients who underwent bariatric surgery (report). 2012. Publisher: Dave Terrey.
Metadata
Title
A Comparison of Health Professionals’ and Patients’ Views of the Importance of 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
Jane Blazeby
Richard Welbourn
James Byrne
Jenny Donovan
Barnaby C. Reeves
Sarah Wordsworth
Robert Andrews
Janice L. Thompson
Graziella Mazza
Chris A. Rogers
On behalf of the By-Band-Sleeve Trial Management Group
Publication date
01-11-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Obesity Surgery / Issue 11/2016
Print ISSN: 0960-8923
Electronic ISSN: 1708-0428
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-016-2186-0

Other articles of this Issue 11/2016

Obesity Surgery 11/2016 Go to the issue

Original Contributions

Patient and Parent Perspectives of Adolescent Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding (LAGB)

Original Contributions

Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy on Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy in Morbidly Obese Patients

Letter to the Editor

Pregnancy Following Bariatric Surgery-Medical Complications and Management

Original Contributions

Early Weight Recidivism Following Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy: A Prospective Observational Study

Original Contributions

Risk of thrombosis and thromboembolic prophylaxis in obesity surgery: data analysis from the German Bariatric Surgery Registry

Original Contributions

Patient-Reported Adherence to Empiric Vitamin/Mineral Supplementation and Related Nutrient Deficiencies After Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass