Laparoscopic Adjustable Gastric Banding (LAGB) Aftercare Attendance and Attrition
- 237 Downloads
Regular aftercare attendance following laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) is associated with greater weight loss and fewer post-surgical complications. Despite high reported rates of attrition from LAGB aftercare, the reasons for non-attendance have not been previously explored. The present study aimed to explore patient-reported barriers to LAGB aftercare attendance, and the perceived helpfulness of potential attrition-reducing strategies, in both regular attendees and non-attendees of aftercare.
One hundred and seventy-nine participants (107 regular attendees and 72 non-attendees) completed a semi-structured questionnaire, assessing barriers to attrition (101 items) and usefulness of attrition prevention strategies (14 items).
Findings indicate that both regular attendees and non-attendees experience multiple barriers to aftercare attendance. Non-attendees generally reported that barriers had a greater impact on their aftercare attendance. There was evidence for some level of acceptability for attrition-reducing strategies suggesting that LAGB patients may be receptive to such strategies.
Current findings highlight the importance of assessing barriers to treatment in both attendees and non-attendees. It is proposed that addressing barriers that differentiate non-attendees from attendees may be most effective in reducing attrition from aftercare.
KeywordsLAGB Aftercare Attrition Perceived barriers Facilitators Strategies Compliance Attendance Complications Follow-up Systematic review
Conflict of Interest
The Centre for Obesity Research and Education (CORE) receives a grant from Allergan for research support. The grant is not tied to any specified research projects, and Allergan has no control of the protocol, analysis and reporting of any studies. CORE also receives a grant from Applied Medical towards the educational programmes. Dr Paul O’Brien reported having written a patient information book entitled The LAP-BAND Solution: A Partnership for Weight Loss which was published by Melbourne University Publishing in 2007. Most copies are given to patients without charge, but he reports that he derives a financial benefit from the copies that are sold. He also reports receiving compensation as the national medical director of the American Institute of Gastric Banding, a multicentre facility, based in Dallas, Texas, that treats obesity predominantly by gastric banding. No other authors reported disclosures.
- 33.Garvey WT, Ryan DH, Look M, et al. Two-year sustained weight loss and metabolic benefits with controlled-release phentermine/topiramate in obese and overweight adults (SEQUEL): A randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 extension study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2012;95(2):297–308.Google Scholar
- 34.Goulis D, Giaglis G, Boren S, et al. Effectiveness of home-centered care through telemedicine applications for overweight and obese patients: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Obes. 2004;28(11):1391.Google Scholar
- 35.McElroy SL, Frye MA, Altshuler LL, et al. A 24-week, randomized, controlled trial of adjunctive sibutramine versus topiramate in the treatment of weight gain in overweight or obese patients with bipolar disorders. Bipolar Disor. 2007;9(4):426–34.Google Scholar
- 37.Jacobsen DJ, Donnelly JE, Snyder-Heelan K, et al. Adherence and attrition with intermittent and continuous exercise in overweight women. Int J Sport Med. 2003;26(4):459–64.Google Scholar
- 42.Smith CH. The effects of telephone prompting and programmed homework in behavioral treatment of the obese. Diss Abstr Int. 1978;39(6):3007–8.Google Scholar
- 54.Lasco RA, Curry RH, Dickson VJ, et al. Participation rates, weight loss, and blood pressure changes among obese women in a nutrition-exercise program. Pubic Health Rep. 1989;104(6):640–6.Google Scholar
- 55.Parra-Medina D, D’Antonio A, Smith SM, et al. Successful recruitment and retention strategies for a randomized weight management trial for people with diabetes living in rural, medically underserved counties of South Carolina: the POWER study. J Am Diet Assoc. 2004;104(1):70–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 62.Kazdin AE. Acceptability of child treatment techniques: the influence of treatment efficacy and adverse side effects. Behav Ther. 1981;12:439–506.Google Scholar
- 66.DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. 2nd ed. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 2003.Google Scholar
- 67.Frazer L, Lawley M. Questionnaire design & administration: a practical guide. Milton: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2000.Google Scholar
- 69.Caltabiano ML, Sarafino EP. Health psychology: biopsychosocial interactions. An Australian Perspective. Milton: John Wiley & Sons; 2002.Google Scholar
- 74.World Health Organization. Innovative care for chronic conditions: building blocks for action: global report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002.Google Scholar
- 78.Zwar NA, Harris M, Griffiths R, et al. A systematic review of chronic disease management. APHCRI: Canberra; 2006.Google Scholar