Skip to main content
Log in

Following Bariatric Surgery: an Exploration of the Couples’ Experience

  • Original Contributions
  • Published:
Obesity Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Buchwald H, Avidor Y, Braunwald E, et al. Bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2004;292(14):1724–37.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Maggard M, Shugarman L, Suttorp M, et al. Meta-analysis: surgical treatment of obesity. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142(7):547–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Peluso L, Vanek V. Efficacy of gastric bypass in the treatment of obesity-related comorbidities. Nutr Clin Pract. 2007;22(1):22–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Engel G. The clinical application of the biopsychosocial model. Am J Psychiatry. 1980;137(5):535–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Engel G. The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science. 1977;196(4286):129–36.

  12. von Bertalanffy L. An outline of general system theory. Br J Philos Sci. 1950;1(2):134–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bronfenbrenner U. Toward an experimental ecology of human development. Am Psychol. 1977;32(7):513–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. Marshall J, Neill J. The removal of a psychosomatic symptom: effects on the marriage. Fam Process. 1977;16(3):273–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Neill J, Marshall J, Yale C. Marital changes after intestinal bypass surgery. JAMA. 1978;240(5):447–58.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Rand C, Kuldau J, Robbins L. Surgery for obesity and marriage quality. JAMA. 1982;247(10):1419–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rand C, Kowalske K, Kuldau J. Characteristics of marital improvement following obesity surgery. Psychosomatics. 1984;25(3):221–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Goble L, Rand C, Kuldau J. Understanding marital relationships following obesity surgery. Fam Ther. 1986;13(2):195–202.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Porter L, Wampler R. Adjustment to rapid weight loss. Families, Systems & Health. 2000;18:35–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. Lincoln Y, Guba E. Naturalistic inquiry. New York: Sage; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Creswell J. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Creswell J. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Brown J. Circular questioning: an introductory guide. Aust N Z J Fam Ther. 1997;18(2):109–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Patton MQ. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Bloor M, Wood F. Keywords in qualitative methods: a vocabulary of research concepts. London: Sage; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Moore K, Jekielek S, Bronte-Tinkew J, et al. What is “Healthy Marriage”? Defining the concept. Washington: Child Trends; 2004.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary Lisa Pories.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pories, M.L., Hodgson, J., Rose, M.A. et al. Following Bariatric Surgery: an Exploration of the Couples’ Experience. OBES SURG 26, 54–60 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-015-1720-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-015-1720-9

Keywords

Navigation