Do images of a personalised future body shape help with weight loss? A randomised controlled study

Background: This randomised controlled study evaluated a computer-generated future self-image as a personalised, visual motivational tool for weight loss in adults. Methods: One hundred and forty-five people (age 18–79 years) with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of at least 25 kg/m2 were randomised to receive a hard copy future self-image at recruitment (early image) or after 8 weeks (delayed image). Participants received general healthy lifestyle information at recruitment and were weighed at 4-weekly intervals for 24 weeks. The image was created using an iPad app called ‘Future Me’. A second randomisation at 16 weeks allocated either an additional future self-image or no additional image. Results: Seventy-four participants were allocated to receive their image at commencement, and 71 to the delayed-image group. Regarding to weight loss, the delayed-image group did consistently better in all analyses. Twenty-four recruits were deemed non-starters, comprising 15 (21%) in the delayed-image group and 9 (12%) in the early-image group (χ2(1) = 2.1, p = 0.15). At 24 weeks there was a significant change in weight overall (p \u3c 0.0001), and a difference in rate of change between groups (delayed-image group: −0.60 kg, early-image group: −0.42 kg, p = 0.01). Men lost weight faster than women. The group into which participants were allocated at week 16 (second image or not) appeared not to influence the outcome (p = 0.31). Analysis of all completers and withdrawals showed a strong trend over time (p \u3c 0.0001), and a difference in rate of change between groups (delayed-image: −0.50 kg, early-image: −0. 27 kg, p = 0.0008). Conclusion: One in five participants in the delayed-image group completing the 24-week intervention achieved a clinically significant weight loss, having received only future self-images and general lifestyle advice. Timing the provision of future self-images appears to be significant, and promising for future research to clarify their efficacy. Trial Registration: Australian Clinical Trials Registry, identifier: ACTRN12613000883718. Registered on 8 August 2013

Additional file 1: of Do images of a personalised future body shape help with weight loss? A randomised controlled study

The Participant Resource Brochure. (PNG 340 kb

The impact of the quality of communication from nephrologists to primary care practitioners: A literature review

© 2014 Informa UK Ltd. Objective: This review of the literature aims to explore two research questions: (1) what is the evidence that patients benefit from sound communication between primary care practitioners (PCPs) and nephrologists; and (2) what information is required in primary care to meet the needs of patients who have attended a renal unit? Research design and methods: Fifty-seven citations were independently reviewed by four authors. The inclusion criteria were: (1) the article focused on information flow from nephrologists and/or specialists to general practitioners; (2) it includes the involvement of PCPs in nephrology, including registrars and PCPs with special interests or specialists in any medical field; (3) it was published from 1990 onwards (inclusive) and (4) the study was conducted in the United Kingdom, Canada, The Netherlands, Australia, United States or New Zealand. Selected articles were then reviewed by the fifth author as a measure of inter-rater reliability. Results: Eighteen papers in four categories were identified: six audits or observational studies, one meta-analysis; one randomized controlled trial; six qualitative studies; and four position statements or quality improvement tools. Published audits involving feedback to clinicians using validated tools demonstrate the scope for substantial improvement in the amount of information relayed to PCPs. Specialists may not prioritize the letter to the PCP but there is some evidence of a direct impact from limited or inadequate communication on patient outcomes. Only two studies focused on patients attending nephrology clinics. Conclusions: There is some evidence that improving the quality of letters from specialists to PCPs may benefit patient care. This review suggests a need for research on communication from nephrologists about patients who have received care at a renal unit regardless of whether or not the patient continues to attend