Exploring patient perspectives on shared decision making about bariatric surgery in two healthcare systems
Abstract Objective To assess patient perspectives on the level of shared decision making (SDM) experienced related to bariatric surgery. Background Severe obesity is common and has serious health implications. Yet, few eligible patients pursue bariatric surgery. Shared decision making could be a use...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2024-12-01
|
| Series: | Obesity Science & Practice |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/osp4.779 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850035604630274048 |
|---|---|
| author | Kathleen McTigue Anita Courcoulas Robert Wellman Ali Tavakkoli Joanna Eavey Emily Klawson Jane Anau Robin Garcia Diana Stilwell Bestoun Ahmed Gary S. Fischer John Maier Kathleen Paul Matt Handley Shireesh Saurabh Christopher Daigle Glyn Elwyn David Arterburn |
| author_facet | Kathleen McTigue Anita Courcoulas Robert Wellman Ali Tavakkoli Joanna Eavey Emily Klawson Jane Anau Robin Garcia Diana Stilwell Bestoun Ahmed Gary S. Fischer John Maier Kathleen Paul Matt Handley Shireesh Saurabh Christopher Daigle Glyn Elwyn David Arterburn |
| author_sort | Kathleen McTigue |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Objective To assess patient perspectives on the level of shared decision making (SDM) experienced related to bariatric surgery. Background Severe obesity is common and has serious health implications. Yet, few eligible patients pursue bariatric surgery. Shared decision making could be a useful approach for considering treatment options. Methods Patients were surveyed at Kaiser Permanente and UPMC clinics providing bariatric surgical services. Cross‐sectional samples represent three time points: (a) Cohort 1 (C1): following referral; (b) Cohort 2 (C2): after initial bariatric practice appointment; (c) Cohort 3 (C3): following pre‐operative visit. Patients completed the electronic survey instruments: CollaboRATE, SDM‐Q‐9, and National Quality Forum (NQF) SDM process measures. Results The sample included 167 participants, half from each site. Cohort distribution was 35% C1, 33% C2, and 32% C3. Mean age was 43.8 years (SD 13.5), BMI was 48 kg/m2 (SD 8.63), 81% were female and 73% were white. Overall, 62% reported CollaboRATE top scores, with a dose‐response (C1: 54%, C2: 60%, C3: 72%). Mean (SD) SDM‐Q‐9 score (possible range: 0–100) was: 79.6 (22.5); with C1: 66.9 (26.5), C2: 83.4 (18.0), and C3: 88.4 (15.9). The average NQF score (possible range: 0–4) was 3.11 (1.14), with C1: 2.71 (1.27), C2: 3.31 (1.09), and C3: 3.28 (0.97). Conclusions Patients seeking bariatric care reported moderate or high levels of SDM. In general, SDM metrics were highest just before surgery. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-18ea27cf044b487d881fc396fca91322 |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 2055-2238 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-12-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Obesity Science & Practice |
| spelling | doaj-art-18ea27cf044b487d881fc396fca913222025-08-20T02:57:26ZengWileyObesity Science & Practice2055-22382024-12-01106n/an/a10.1002/osp4.779Exploring patient perspectives on shared decision making about bariatric surgery in two healthcare systemsKathleen McTigue0Anita Courcoulas1Robert Wellman2Ali Tavakkoli3Joanna Eavey4Emily Klawson5Jane Anau6Robin Garcia7Diana Stilwell8Bestoun Ahmed9Gary S. Fischer10John Maier11Kathleen Paul12Matt Handley13Shireesh Saurabh14Christopher Daigle15Glyn Elwyn16David Arterburn17Departments of Medicine and Epidemiology University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USADepartment of Surgery University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USAKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute Seattle Washington USADivision of General and GI Surgery Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston Massachusetts USAKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute Seattle Washington USADepartment of Medicine University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USAKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute Seattle Washington USAKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute Seattle Washington USAShared Decision Making Solutions Consultants Boston Massachusetts USADepartment of Surgery University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USADepartment of Medicine University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USADepartment of Family Medicine University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USAWashington Permanente Medical Group Seattle Washington USABariatric Surgery Digestive Health Institute (DHI) Swedish Medical Center Seattle Washington USABariatric Surgery Digestive Health Institute (DHI) Swedish Medical Center Seattle Washington USAWashington Permanente Medical Group Seattle Washington USAThe Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice Hanover New Hampshire USAKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute Seattle Washington USAAbstract Objective To assess patient perspectives on the level of shared decision making (SDM) experienced related to bariatric surgery. Background Severe obesity is common and has serious health implications. Yet, few eligible patients pursue bariatric surgery. Shared decision making could be a useful approach for considering treatment options. Methods Patients were surveyed at Kaiser Permanente and UPMC clinics providing bariatric surgical services. Cross‐sectional samples represent three time points: (a) Cohort 1 (C1): following referral; (b) Cohort 2 (C2): after initial bariatric practice appointment; (c) Cohort 3 (C3): following pre‐operative visit. Patients completed the electronic survey instruments: CollaboRATE, SDM‐Q‐9, and National Quality Forum (NQF) SDM process measures. Results The sample included 167 participants, half from each site. Cohort distribution was 35% C1, 33% C2, and 32% C3. Mean age was 43.8 years (SD 13.5), BMI was 48 kg/m2 (SD 8.63), 81% were female and 73% were white. Overall, 62% reported CollaboRATE top scores, with a dose‐response (C1: 54%, C2: 60%, C3: 72%). Mean (SD) SDM‐Q‐9 score (possible range: 0–100) was: 79.6 (22.5); with C1: 66.9 (26.5), C2: 83.4 (18.0), and C3: 88.4 (15.9). The average NQF score (possible range: 0–4) was 3.11 (1.14), with C1: 2.71 (1.27), C2: 3.31 (1.09), and C3: 3.28 (0.97). Conclusions Patients seeking bariatric care reported moderate or high levels of SDM. In general, SDM metrics were highest just before surgery.https://doi.org/10.1002/osp4.779bariatric surgeryobesityshared decision making |
| spellingShingle | Kathleen McTigue Anita Courcoulas Robert Wellman Ali Tavakkoli Joanna Eavey Emily Klawson Jane Anau Robin Garcia Diana Stilwell Bestoun Ahmed Gary S. Fischer John Maier Kathleen Paul Matt Handley Shireesh Saurabh Christopher Daigle Glyn Elwyn David Arterburn Exploring patient perspectives on shared decision making about bariatric surgery in two healthcare systems Obesity Science & Practice bariatric surgery obesity shared decision making |
| title | Exploring patient perspectives on shared decision making about bariatric surgery in two healthcare systems |
| title_full | Exploring patient perspectives on shared decision making about bariatric surgery in two healthcare systems |
| title_fullStr | Exploring patient perspectives on shared decision making about bariatric surgery in two healthcare systems |
| title_full_unstemmed | Exploring patient perspectives on shared decision making about bariatric surgery in two healthcare systems |
| title_short | Exploring patient perspectives on shared decision making about bariatric surgery in two healthcare systems |
| title_sort | exploring patient perspectives on shared decision making about bariatric surgery in two healthcare systems |
| topic | bariatric surgery obesity shared decision making |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/osp4.779 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kathleenmctigue exploringpatientperspectivesonshareddecisionmakingaboutbariatricsurgeryintwohealthcaresystems AT anitacourcoulas exploringpatientperspectivesonshareddecisionmakingaboutbariatricsurgeryintwohealthcaresystems AT robertwellman exploringpatientperspectivesonshareddecisionmakingaboutbariatricsurgeryintwohealthcaresystems AT alitavakkoli exploringpatientperspectivesonshareddecisionmakingaboutbariatricsurgeryintwohealthcaresystems AT joannaeavey exploringpatientperspectivesonshareddecisionmakingaboutbariatricsurgeryintwohealthcaresystems AT emilyklawson exploringpatientperspectivesonshareddecisionmakingaboutbariatricsurgeryintwohealthcaresystems AT janeanau exploringpatientperspectivesonshareddecisionmakingaboutbariatricsurgeryintwohealthcaresystems AT robingarcia exploringpatientperspectivesonshareddecisionmakingaboutbariatricsurgeryintwohealthcaresystems AT dianastilwell exploringpatientperspectivesonshareddecisionmakingaboutbariatricsurgeryintwohealthcaresystems AT bestounahmed exploringpatientperspectivesonshareddecisionmakingaboutbariatricsurgeryintwohealthcaresystems AT garysfischer exploringpatientperspectivesonshareddecisionmakingaboutbariatricsurgeryintwohealthcaresystems AT johnmaier exploringpatientperspectivesonshareddecisionmakingaboutbariatricsurgeryintwohealthcaresystems AT kathleenpaul exploringpatientperspectivesonshareddecisionmakingaboutbariatricsurgeryintwohealthcaresystems AT matthandley exploringpatientperspectivesonshareddecisionmakingaboutbariatricsurgeryintwohealthcaresystems AT shireeshsaurabh exploringpatientperspectivesonshareddecisionmakingaboutbariatricsurgeryintwohealthcaresystems AT christopherdaigle exploringpatientperspectivesonshareddecisionmakingaboutbariatricsurgeryintwohealthcaresystems AT glynelwyn exploringpatientperspectivesonshareddecisionmakingaboutbariatricsurgeryintwohealthcaresystems AT davidarterburn exploringpatientperspectivesonshareddecisionmakingaboutbariatricsurgeryintwohealthcaresystems |