FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

Prevalence and short-term change in symptoms of anxiety and depression following bariatric surgery: a prospective cohort study

Objectives

Bariatric surgery is an effective treatment for severe obesity that leads to significant physical health improvements. Few studies have prospectively described the short-term impact of surgery on mental health using standardised case-finding measures for anxiety or depressive disorders. This study describes the prevalence and short-term course of these conditions following surgery.

Design

Prospective observational cohort study.

Setting

12 National Health Service centres in England.

Participants

Participants studied took part in the By-Band-Sleeve study, a multicentre randomised controlled trial evaluating the surgical management of severe obesity. We included participants who had undergone surgery (gastric bypass, gastric band or sleeve gastrectomy) within 6 months of randomisation.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Anxiety and depression were assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at baseline and 12 months post-randomisation. Sociodemographic variables collected at prerandomisation included body mass index, age, sex, ethnicity, marital status, tobacco use, employment status and income band.

Results

In our sample of 758 participants, 94.5% (n 716) and 93.9% (n 712) had completed baseline anxiety (HADS-A) and depression (HADS-D) subscales. At pre-randomisation 46.1% (n 330/716, 95% CI 42.4% to 49.7%) met clinical case criteria for anxiety and 48.2% (n 343/712, 95% CI 44.5% to 51.8%) for depression. Among participants returning completed 12 months post-randomisation questionnaires (HADS-A n 503/716, HADS-D n 498/712), there was a significant reduction in the proportion of clinical cases with anxiety (–9.5%, 95% CI –14.3% to -4.8% p

Conclusions

Almost half of people undergoing bariatric surgery had underlying anxiety or depressive symptoms. In the short term, these symptoms appear to substantially improve. Future work must identify whether these effects are sustained beyond the first post-randomisation year.

Trial registration number

NCT02841527 and ISRCTN00786323.

Talking numbers: how women and providers use risk scores during and after risk counseling - a qualitative investigation from the NRG Oncology/NSABP DMP-1 study

Por: Blakeslee · S. B. · Gunn · C. M. · Parker · P. A. · Fagerlin · A. · Battaglia · T. · Bevers · T. B. · Bandos · H. · McCaskill-Stevens · W. · Kennedy · J. W. · Holmberg · C.
Objectives

Little research exists on how risk scores are used in counselling. We examined (a) how Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) scores are presented during counselling; (b) how women react and (c) discuss them afterwards.

Design

Consultations were video-recorded and participants were interviewed after the consultation as part of the NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Decision-Making Project 1 (NSABP DMP-1).

Setting

Two NSABP DMP-1 breast cancer care centres in the USA: one large comprehensive cancer centre serving a high-risk population and an academic safety-net medical centre in an urban setting.

Participants

Thirty women evaluated for breast cancer risk and their counselling providers were included.

Methods

Participants who were identified as at increased risk of breast cancer were recruited to participate in qualitative study with a video-recorded consultation and subsequent semi-structured interview that included giving feedback and input after viewing their own consultation. Consultation videos were summarised jointly and inductively as a team.tThe interview material was searched deductively for text segments that contained the inductively derived themes related to risk assessment. Subgroup analysis according to demographic variables such as age and Gail score were conducted, investigating reactions to risk scores and contrasting and comparing them with the pertinent video analysis data. From this, four descriptive categories of reactions to risk scores emerged. The descriptive categories were clearly defined after 19 interviews; all 30 interviews fit principally into one of the four descriptive categories.

Results

Risk scores were individualised and given meaning by providers through: (a) presenting thresholds, (b) making comparisons and (c) emphasising or minimising the calculated risk. The risk score information elicited little reaction from participants during consultations, though some added to, agreed with or qualified the provider’s information. During interviews, participants reacted to the numbers in four primary ways: (a) engaging easily with numbers; (b) expressing greater anxiety after discussing the risk score; (c) accepting the risk score and (d) not talking about the risk score.

Conclusions

Our study highlights the necessity that patients’ experiences must be understood and put into relation to risk assessment information to become a meaningful treatment decision-making tool, for instance by categorising patients’ information engagement into types.

Trial registration number

NCT01399359.

❌