Bariatric surgeons' views on pre-operative factors associated with improved health-related quality of life following surgery

Bariatric surgery is an effective treatment for severe obesity, affording significant improvements in weight loss and health-related quality of life. However, bariatric surgeons' views on whether certain pre-operative factors predict improvements in post-operative health-related quality of life, and if so, which ones, are largely unknown. This cross-sectional survey study examined the views of 58 bariatric surgeons from Australia and New Zealand. A total of 18 factors were selected for exploration based on their mention in the literature. Participants rated the extent to which they thought these pre-operative factors would improve post-operative health-related quality of life. Responses showed that bariatric surgeons held diverse perspectives and revealed a lack of consensus regarding "predictive" factors. Generally, respondents agreed that better than average health literacy, higher socioeconomic status, good physical and psychological health, and positive social support were predictors of improved health-related quality of life following surgery. However, poor eating behaviours, smoking, and the use of alcohol or other substances were deemed negative predictors. Interestingly, aside from higher socioeconomic status, good psychological health, and positive social support, none of the aforementioned views aligned with existing literature. This study offers an initial insight into bariatric surgeons' views on the influence of different pre-operative factors on post-operative health-related quality of life. The array of views identified suggests that there may be an opportunity for medical education, but the findings warrant caution due to the sample size. Replication with a larger survey may be useful, especially as predicted health-related quality of life outcomes could guide decisions regarding surgical (non)progression.

Waiting in Pain II: An Updated Analysis of the Multidisciplinary Staffing Levels and Clinical Activity in Australian Specialist Persistent Pain Services

This study provides an update on multidisciplinary staffing and clinical activity in Australian specialist persistent pain services. Of the 109 services identified, 57 responded, met inclusion criteria and completed a study-specific questionnaire detailing service characteristics, staff resources, and clinical activities. Where possible, data were compared between the 'Waiting in Pain' (WIP) investigations (WIP-I: Dec'08-Jan'10, WIP-II: Jul'16-Feb'18). WIP-II found more pain services (Level 1 centres, rural services) and more full-time equivalent (FTE) staffing (overall, psychiatry, psychology, occupational therapy) than WIP-I. Although Level 1 centres employed more FTE staff (overall, medical) than Level 2 clinics, staffing was comparable when considered relative to clinical activity and this was stable over time for most disciplines. Clinical activity in metropolitan and rural services also remained stable, as did rural service staffing (type, FTE), suggesting that newer clinics replicated existing models. WIP-II highlighted greater diversity in group structures than WIP-I and an associated mean .02FTE allied health staff/patient seen (WIP-I = .03 FTE). Staffing (amounts, types) did not change significantly over time when considered relative to clinical activity, supporting the conclusion that these are workable clinical structures. However, changes in group format (duration, staffing) suggest a shift towards lower-intensity programmes that require less allied health staffing to deliver. PERSPECTIVE: This article presents updated data regarding multidisciplinary staffing profiles, clinical activity, and group programme structures within Australian specialist persistent pain services and examines changes since the original investigation. As the only published staffing profile for multidisciplinary pain services, this project provides critical information to inform service (re)design and care delivery.

Improving management of needle distress during the journey to dialysis through psychological education and training-the INJECT study feasibility pilot protocol

BACKGROUND

Needle-related distress is a common yet poorly recognised and managed problem among haemodialysis (HD) patients. The aim of this pilot study is to test the feasibility and acceptability of the INJECT Intervention-an innovative psychology-based intervention to empower patients to self-manage needle distress with the support of dialysis nurses.

METHODS

This investigator-initiated, single-arm, non-randomised feasibility study will take place in a large dialysis service in Adelaide, Australia. Participants will include patients aged ≥ 18 years, commencing or already receiving maintenance HD, recruited through dialysis physicians and nursing staff as individuals believed to be at risk of needle distress. They will be screened for inclusion using the Dialysis Fear of Injection Questionnaire (DFIQ) and enrolled into the study if the score is ≥ 2. The multi-pronged intervention encompasses (i) psychologist review, (ii) patient self-management program and (iii) nursing education program. The primary aim is to evaluate feasibility and acceptability of the intervention from patient and dialysis nurse perspectives, including recruitment, retention, engagement with the intervention and completion. Secondary exploratory outcomes will assess suitability of various tools for measuring needle distress, evaluate acceptability of the nursing education program and measure cannulation-related trauma and vascular access outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The results will inform the protocol for larger trials addressing needle distress in HD patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12621000229875, approved 4 April 2021, https://www.anzctr.org.au/ .