The implications of defining obesity as a disease: a report from the Association for the Study of Obesity 2021 annual conference

Unlike various countries and organisations, including the World Health Organisation and the European Parliament, the United Kingdom does not formally recognise obesity as a disease. This report presents the discussion on the potential impact of defining obesity as a disease on the patient, the healthcare system, the economy, and the wider society. A group of speakers from a wide range of disciplines came together to debate the topic bringing their knowledge and expertise from backgrounds in medicine, psychology, economics, and politics as well as the experience of people living with obesity. The aim of their debate was not to decide whether obesity should be classified as a disease but rather to explore what the implications of doing so would be, what the gaps in the available data are, as well as to provide up-to-date information on the topic from experts in the field. There were four topics where speakers presented their viewpoints, each one including a question-and-answer section for debate. The first one focused on the impact that the recognition of obesity could have on people living with obesity regarding the change in their behaviour, either positive and empowering or more stigmatising. During the second one, the impact of defining obesity as a disease on the National Health Service and the wider economy was discussed. The primary outcome was the need for more robust data as the one available does not represent the actual cost of obesity. The third topic was related to the policy implications regarding treatment provision, focusing on the public's power to influence policy. Finally, the last issue discussed, included the implications of public health actions, highlighting the importance of the government's actions and private stakeholders. The speakers agreed that no matter where they stand on this debate, the goal is common: to provide a healthcare system that supports and protects the patients, strategies that protect the economy and broader society, and policies that reduce stigma and promote health equity. Many questions are left to be answered regarding how these goals can be achieved. However, this discussion has set a good foundation providing evidence that can be used by the public, clinicians, and policymakers to make that happen

Snacktivity™ to promote physical activity and reduce future risk of disease in the population: protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial and nested qualitative study

Background: Many people do not regularly participate in physical activity, which may negatively impact their health. Current physical activity guidelines are focused on promoting weekly accumulation of at least 150 min of moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA). Whilst revised guidance now recognises the importance of making small changes to physical activity behaviour, guidance still focuses on adults needing to achieve at least 150 min of MVPA per week. An alternative ‘whole day’ approach that could motivate the public to be more physically active, is a concept called Snacktivity™. Instead of focusing on achieving 150 min per week of physical activity, for example 30 min of MVPA over 5 days, Snacktivity™ encourages the public to achieve this through small, but frequent, 2–5 min ‘snacks’ of MVPA throughout the whole day. Methods: The primary aim is to undertake a feasibility trial with nested qualitative interviews to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the Snacktivity™ intervention to inform the design of a subsequent phase III randomised trial. A two-arm randomised controlled feasibility trial aiming to recruit 80 inactive adults will be conducted. Recruitment will be from health and community settings and social media. Participants will be individually randomised (1:1 ratio) to receive either the Snacktivity™ intervention or usual care. The intervention will last 12 weeks with assessment of outcomes completed before and after the intervention in all participants. We are interested in whether the Snacktivity™ trial is appealing to participants (assessed by the recruitment rate) and if the Snacktivity™ intervention and trial methods are acceptable to participants (assessed by Snacktivity™/physical activity adherence and retention rates). The intervention will be delivered by health care providers within health care consultations or by researchers. Participants’ experiences of the trial and intervention, and health care providers’ views of delivering the intervention within health consultations will be explored. Discussion: The development of physical activity interventions that can be delivered at scale are needed. The findings from this study will inform the viability and design of a phase III trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Snacktivity™ to increase physical activity. Trial registration: ISRCTN: 64851242

British Obesity and Metabolic Surgery Society Guidelines on perioperative and postoperative biochemical monitoring and micronutrient replacement for patients undergoing bariatric surgery - 2020 Update

Bariatric surgery is recognised as the most clinically and cost-effective treatment for people with severe and complex obesity. Many people presenting for surgery have pre-existing low vitamin and mineral concentrations. The incidence of these may increase after bariatric surgery as all procedures potentially cause clinically significant micronutrient deficiencies. Therefore, preparation for surgery and long term nutritional monitoring and follow-up are essential components of bariatric surgical care. These guidelines update the 2014 British Obesity and Metabolic Surgery Society nutritional guidelines. Since the 2014 guidelines the working group has been expanded to include healthcare professionals working in specialist and non-specialist care as well as patient representatives. In addition, in these updated guidelines the current evidence has been systematically reviewed for adults and adolescents undergoing the following procedures: adjustable gastric band, sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-y gastric bypass and biliopancreatic diversion/duodenal switch. Using methods based on Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology, the levels of evidence and recommendations have been graded. These guidelines are comprehensive, encompassing preoperative and postoperative biochemical monitoring, vitamin and mineral supplementation and correction of nutrition deficiencies before, and following bariatric surgery, and make recommendations for safe clinical practice in the UK setting

Visual identification of obesity by healthcare professionals: an experimental study of trainee and qualified GPs.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines suggest that GPs should intervene on patients' weight, but to do so GPs must first recognise that a patient may have a weight problem and weigh them. AIM: To examine whether GPs and trainee GPs can identify overweight and obese body weights by sight, and if this influences whether they would discuss weight with a potential patient. DESIGN AND SETTING: Study of GPs and trainee GPs on the lists of the UK NHS Workforce West Midlands Deanery and NHS Sandwell and West Birmingham Clinical Commissioning Group. METHOD: Participants viewed 15 standardised photographs of healthy-weight, overweight, and obese young males, and estimated their BMI, classified their weight status, and reported whether they would be likely to make a brief intervention for weight loss with that person. RESULTS: The sample of GPs and trainee GPs correctly classified a mean of 4.0/5.0 of the healthy weight males, a mean of 2.4/5.0 of the overweight, and a mean of 1.7/5.0 of the obese males. For each 1 kg/m(2) increase in actual BMI, participants underestimated BMI by -0.21 (95% CI = -0.22 to -0.18), meaning that participants would underestimate the BMI of a man of 30 kg/m(2) by approximately 2.5 kg/m(2), but were more accurate for lower body weights. Participants were more likely to intervene with those with a higher estimated BMI (OR 1.53, 95% CI = 1.49 to 1.58). CONCLUSION: This sample of predominantly trainee GPs perceived overweight and obese weights as being of lower BMI and weight status than they actually are, and this was associated with a lower intention of discussing weight management with a potential patient. This was found to be true for trainee and fully qualified GPs who participated in the study. Healthcare professionals should not rely on visual judgements when identifying patients who may benefit from weight management treatment

Experiences and perceptions of dietitians for obesity management: a general practice qualitative study.

BACKGROUND Multi-component lifestyle interventions are the first line treatment for obesity. Dietitians are ideally placed healthcare professionals to deliver such interventions. However, only a small proportion of patients with obesity are referred by general practice to dietitians, and the reasons for this are not clear. The present study aimed to explore general practice healthcare professionals' (GPHCPs) experiences and perceptions of dietitians in the context of obesity management. METHODS A convenience sample of GPHCPs practicing in the UK was recruited via a targeted social media strategy, using virtual snowball sampling. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews and analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS In total, 20 participants were interviewed (11 general practice nurses and nine general practitioners). Experiences of referring patients with obesity for dietetic intervention resulted in two main themes: (i) access barriers and (ii) the dietetic consult experience. Three themes emerged from participants' perceptions of a role for general practice dietitians: (i) utilising dietetic expertise; (ii) access to dietitian; and (iii) time. Participants experienced barriers to accessing dietitians for obesity management and felt that having a dietitian working within their general practice team would help address this. Having a dietitian embedded within their general practice team was perceived to have the potential to alleviate GPHCPs' clinical time pressures, offer opportunities for upskilling, and may improve patient engagement with obesity management. CONCLUSIONS GPHCPs perceived that embedding a dietitian within their general practice team would be valuable and beneficial for obesity management. Our findings provide support for the funding of general practice dietitian roles in the UK

Ten Top Tips for the management of patients post-bariatric surgery in primary care

Obesity is recognised as a major health and economic issue for the NHS. The rate of severe obesity with BMI >40 is increasing rapidly and these patients have a disproportionate increase in health and social care needs. NICE recognises bariatric surgery as an appropriate and cost-effective treatment for this group of patients and the number of surgical procedures is likely to increase. With a lack of commissioned local Tier 3 weight management services many of these patients may be lost to follow-up and be at risk of nutritional deficiencies and metabolic complications. The RCGP Nutrition Group has developed these guidelines in response to this problem. Patients who have had their procedure carried out under the NHS have follow up within specialist services for the first 1-2 years post surgery. These guidelines are aimed at all nonspecialist clinicians, dietitians and nurses to aid management of these patients once they are discharged back to primary care and aid management of any patients where follow up guidance by the surgical team was not issued. Please note that patients who have moved area or who undergo a private procedure are likely to have had less specialist follow up and may need to be managed in primary care earlier post procedure. Any new concerns should always trigger referral to a Tier 3 weight management service (if available) or the local bariatric surgical team for further advice

‘Snacktivity™’ to increase physical activity: Time to try something different?

Evidence demonstrates that participation in regular physical activity (PA) reduces the risk of morbidity and mortality. However, current PA guidelines are focused on weekly accumulation of 150 min of moderate intensity PA as a threshold. Although recent developments of this guidance have discussed the merits of short bouts of physical activity, guidance that sets large behavioural goals for PA has not been successful in supporting the public to become sufficiently physically active and a ‘one-size fits all’ approach to PA guidelines may not be optimal. A complementary ‘whole day’ approach to PA promotion (i.e. incorporating PA throughout the day) that could motivate the population to be more physically active, is a concept we have called ‘Snacktivity™’. The Snacktivity™ approach promotes small or ‘bite’ size bouts (e.g. 2–5 min) of PA accumulated throughout the whole day. Snacktivity™ is consistent with the small change approach which suggest that behaviour change and habit formation are best achieved through gradual building of task self-efficacy, celebrating small successes. Snacktivity™also offers opportunities to “piggyback” on to existing behaviours/habits, using them as prompts for Snacktivity™. Moreover, small behaviour changes are easier to initiate and maintain than larger ones. A plethora of evidence supports the hypothesis that Snacktivity may be a more acceptable and effective way to help the public reach, or exceed current PA guidelines. This paper outlines the evidence to support the Snacktivity™ approach and the mechanisms by which it may increase population levels of physical activity. Future research directions for Snacktivity™ are also outlined

Promoting participation in physical activity through Snacktivity:A qualitative mixed methods study

Background Public health guidance acknowledges the benefits of physical activity of any duration. We have proposed a whole-day approach to promoting physical activity called Snacktivity™, which encourages frequent 2–5 minute ‘activity snacks’ of moderate-to-vigorous intensity. Methods Using repeated semi-structured interviews and a think aloud protocol, this study aimed to understand participants’ experiences of integrating Snacktivity™ into daily life, to provide insights to refine the delivery of Snacktivity™ interventions. Physically inactive adults recruited via primary care and a community health service engaged with an intervention to encourage Snacktivity™ over three weeks, which included using a Fitbit and linked mobile phone app (SnackApp). Participants took part in semi-structured interviews on two occasions during the intervention, with a sub-group participating in a think aloud study. Three study data sets were generated and independently explored using inductive thematic analysis, with findings combined into a single set of themes. Results Eleven adults participated in the interview study who were interviewed twice (total interviews completed n = 21, 1 participant declined the second interview), of whom six completed the think aloud study (total voice recordings n = 103). Three main themes emerged from the combined data; lived experience of participating in Snacktivity™, motivation for Snacktivity™ and experiences with the Snacktivity™ technology. Participants undertook a variety of activity snacks, utilising their environment, which they believed improved their psychological wellbeing. Participants were enthusiastic about Snacktivity™, with some stating that activity snacks were more accessible than traditional exercise, but perceived they were often prevented from doing so in the presence of others. Participants were mostly enthusiastic about using the Snacktivity™ technology. Conclusion Participants were able to incorporate Snacktivity™ into their lives, particularly at home, and found this approach acceptable. Participants felt they experienced health benefits from Snacktivity™ although barriers to participation were reported. This study offers insights for translating guidance into practice and supporting people to become more physically active.peerReviewe