Obesity Surgery

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 54–60 | Cite as

Following Bariatric Surgery: an Exploration of the Couples’ Experience

  • Mary Lisa PoriesEmail author
  • Jennifer Hodgson
  • Mary Ann Rose
  • John Pender
  • Natalia Sira
  • Melvin Swanson
Original Contributions



Bariatric surgery is the most effective intervention for morbid obesity, resulting in substantial weight loss and the resolution of co-morbid conditions. It is not clear what impact bariatric surgery and the subsequent life-style changes have on patients’ couple relationships. The purpose of this phenomenological study was to examine the lived experience of couples after one member of the couple underwent bariatric surgery.


This study utilized a phenomenological approach of semi-structured interviews of the couples jointly (n = 10 couples). Colaizzi’s method of analysis for phenomenological studies was utilized to elucidate the central themes and distill the essence of the participants’ experience.


All of the couples felt their post-operative success was due to a joint effort on both members of the couples’ part. The participant couples described the following five emerging thematic experiences: (a) changes in physical health, (b) changes in emotional health, (c) changes in eating habits, (d) greater intimacy in the relationship, and (e) the joint journey.


This research provides greater insight into the experience of the couple than has been previously reported. The use of qualitative research techniques offer new approaches to examine the biopsychosocial outcomes and needs of bariatric surgery patients. Further research is warranted in order to develop culturally appropriate interventions to improve the patient’s surgical and biopsychosocial outcomes.


Obesity surgery Bariatric surgery Couples Qualitative method 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.


  1. 1.
    Buchwald H, Avidor Y, Braunwald E, et al. Bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004;292(14):1724–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buchwald H, Estok R, Fahrbach K, et al. Weight and type 2 diabetes after bariatric surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Med. 2009;122(3):248–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chang S, Stoll C, Song J, et al. The effectiveness and risks of bariatric surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis, 2003–2012. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(3):275–87.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garb J, Welch G, Zagarin S, et al. Bariatric surgery for the treatment of morbid obesity: a meta-analysis of weight loss outcomes for laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding and laparoscopic gastric bypass. Obes Surg. 2009;19(10):1447–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maggard M, Shugarman L, Suttorp M, et al. Meta-analysis: surgical treatment of obesity. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(7):547–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ribaric G, Buchwald J, McGlennon T. Diabetes and weight in comparative studies of bariatric surgery vs conventional medical therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Surg. 2014;24(3):437–55.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ali M, Maguire M, Wolfe B. Assessment of obesity-related comorbidities: a novel scheme for evaluating bariatric surgical patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2006;202(1):70–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Padwal R, Klarenbach S, Wiebe N, et al. Bariatric surgery: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis of randomized trials. Obs Rev. 2011;12(8):602–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peluso L, Vanek V. Efficacy of gastric bypass in the treatment of obesity-related comorbidities. Nutr Clin Pract. 2007;22(1):22–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Engel G. The clinical application of the biopsychosocial model. Am J Psychiatry. 1980;137(5):535–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Engel G. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science. 1977;196(4286):129–36.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    von Bertalanffy L. An outline of general system theory. Br J Philos Sci. 1950;1(2):134–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bronfenbrenner U. Toward an experimental ecology of human development. Am Psychol. 1977;32(7):513–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bateson G. Steps to an ecology of mind: a revolutionary approach to man’s understanding of himself. New York: Ballantine Books; 1972.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marshall J, Neill J. The removal of a psychosomatic symptom: effects on the marriage. Fam Process. 1977;16(3):273–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Neill J, Marshall J, Yale C. Marital changes after intestinal bypass surgery. JAMA. 1978;240(5):447–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rand C, Kuldau J, Robbins L. Surgery for obesity and marriage quality. JAMA. 1982;247(10):1419–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rand C, Kowalske K, Kuldau J. Characteristics of marital improvement following obesity surgery. Psychosomatics. 1984;25(3):221–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Goble L, Rand C, Kuldau J. Understanding marital relationships following obesity surgery. Fam Ther. 1986;13(2):195–202.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rand C, Macgregor A, Hankins G. Gastric bypass surgery for obesity: weight loss, psychosocial outcome, and morbidity one and three years later. South Med J. 1986;79(12):1511–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hafner R, Rogers J. Husbands’ adjustment to wives’ weight loss after gastric restriction for morbid obesity. Int J Obes. 1990;14(12):1069–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Porter L, Wampler R. Adjustment to rapid weight loss. Families, Systems & Health. 2000;18:35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery (LABS) Consortium. Peri-operative safety in the longitudinal assessment of bariatric surgery. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:445–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sjöström L, Narbro K, Sjöström D, et al. Effects of bariatric surgery on mortality in Swedish obese subjects. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(8):741–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Colaizzi P. Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In: Vaile R, King M, editors. Existential phenomenological alternatives for psychology. New York: Oxford University Press; 1979. p. 48–71.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lincoln Y, Guba E. Naturalistic inquiry. New York: Sage; 1985.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Creswell J. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2013.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Simmons J, McMahon J. Barriers to drug treatment for IDU couples: the need for couple-based approaches. J Addict Dis. 2012;31(3):242–57.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gangamma R, Bartle-Haring S, Glebova T. A study of contextual therapy theory’s relational ethics in couples in therapy. Fam Relat. 2012;61(5):825–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Creswell J. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2007.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brown J. Circular questioning: an introductory guide. Aust N Z J Fam Ther. 1997;18(2):109–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Patton MQ. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc; 1990.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bloor M, Wood F. Keywords in qualitative methods: a vocabulary of research concepts. London: Sage; 2006.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Moore K, Jekielek S, Bronte-Tinkew J, et al. What is “Healthy Marriage”? Defining the concept. Washington: Child Trends; 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Waring E, Tillman M, Frelick L, et al. Concepts of intimacy in the general population. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1980;168(8):471–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    McWilliams C. Phenomenology. In: Bourgeault I, Dingwall R, de Vries R, editors. The sage handbook of qualitative methods in health research. Los Angeles: Sage; 2010. p. 229–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary Lisa Pories
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jennifer Hodgson
    • 1
  • Mary Ann Rose
    • 2
  • John Pender
    • 3
  • Natalia Sira
    • 1
  • Melvin Swanson
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Human EcologyEast Carolina UniversityGreenvilleUSA
  2. 2.College of NursingEast Carolina UniversityGreenvilleUSA
  3. 3.Brody School of MedicineEast Carolina UniversityGreenvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations