Engaging patients, clinicians and health funders in weight management: the Counterweight Programme.

Background. The Counterweight Programme provides an evidence based and effective approach for weight management in routine primary care. Uptake of the programme has been variable for practices and patients. Aim. To explore key barriers and facilitators of practice and patient engagement in the Counterweight Programme and to describe key strategies used to address barriers in the wider implementation of this weight management programme in UK primary care. Methods. All seven weight management advisers participated in a focus group. In-depth interviews were conducted with purposeful samples of GPs (n = 7) and practice nurses (n = 15) from 11 practices out of the 65 participating in the programme. A total of 37 patients participated through a mixture of in-depth interviews (n = 18) and three focus groups. Interviews and focus groups were analysed for key themes that emerged. Results. Engagement of practice staff was influenced by clinicians beliefs and attitudes, factors relating to the way the programme was initiated and implemented, the programme content and organizational/contextual factors. Patient engagement was influenced by practice endorsement of the programme, clear understanding of programme goals, structured proactive follow-up and perception of positive outcomes. Conclusions. Having a clear understanding of programme goals and expectations, enhancing self-efficacy in weight management and providing proactive follow-up is important for engaging both practices and patients. The widespread integration of weight management programmes into routine primary care is likely to require supportive public policy

Engaging patients, clinicians and health funders in weight management: the Counterweight Programme

Background. The Counterweight Programme provides an evidence based and effective approach for weight management in routine primary care. Uptake of the programme has been variable for practices and patients. Aim. To explore key barriers and facilitators of practice and patient engagement in the Counterweight Programme and to describe key strategies used to address barriers in the wider implementation of this weight management programme in UK primary care. Methods. All seven weight management advisers participated in a focus group. In-depth interviews were conducted with purposeful samples of GPs (n = 7) and practice nurses (n = 15) from 11 practices out of the 65 participating in the programme. A total of 37 patients participated through a mixture of in-depth interviews (n = 18) and three focus groups. Interviews and focus groups were analysed for key themes that emerged. Results. Engagement of practice staff was influenced by clinicians’ beliefs and attitudes, factors relating to the way the programme was initiated and implemented, the programme content and organizational/contextual factors. Patient engagement was influenced by practice endorsement of the programme, clear understanding of programme goals, structured proactive follow-up and perception of positive outcomes. Conclusions. Having a clear understanding of programme goals and expectations, enhancing self-efficacy in weight management and providing proactive follow-up is important for engaging both practices and patients. The widespread integration of weight management programmes into routine primary care is likely to require supportive public policy

Influence of body mass index on prescribing costs and potential cost savings of a weight management programme in primary care

Objectives: Prescribed medications represent a high and increasing proportion of UK health care funds. Our aim was to quantify the influence of body mass index (BMI) on prescribing costs, and then the potential savings attached to implementing a weight management intervention. Methods: Paper and computer-based medical records were reviewed for all drug prescriptions over an 18-month period for 3400 randomly selected adult patients (18–75 years) stratified by BMI, from 23 primary care practices in seven UK regions. Drug costs from the British National Formulary at the time of the review were used. Multivariate regression analysis was applied to estimate the cost for all drugs and the ‘top ten’ drugs at each BMI point. This allowed the total and attributable prescribing costs to be estimated at any BMI. Weight loss outcomes achieved in a weight management programme (Counterweight) were used to model potential effects of weight change on drug costs. Anticipated savings were then compared with the cost programme delivery. Analysis was carried out on patients with follow-up data at 12 and 24 months as well as on an intention-to-treat basis. Outcomes from Counterweight were based on the observed lost to follow-up rate of 50%, and the assumption that those patients would continue a generally observed weight gain of 1 kg per year from baseline. Results: The minimum annual cost of all drug prescriptions at BMI 20 kg/m2 was £50.71 for men and £62.59 for women. Costs were greater by £5.27 (men) and £4.20 (women) for each unit increase in BMI, to a BMI of 25 (men £77.04, women £78.91), then by £7.78 and £5.53, respectively, to BMI 30 (men £115.93 women £111.23), then by £8.27 and £4.95 to BMI 40 (men £198.66, women £160.73). The relationship between increasing BMI and costs for the top ten drugs was more pronounced. Minimum costs were at a BMI of 20 (men £8.45, women £7.80), substantially greater at BMI 30 (men £23.98, women £16.72) and highest at BMI 40 (men £63.59, women £27.16). Attributable cost of overweight and obesity accounted for 23% of spending on all drugs with 16% attributable to obesity. The cost of the programme was estimated to be approximately £60 per patient entered. Modelling weight reductions achieved by the Counterweight weight management programme would potentially reduce prescribing costs by £6.35 (men) and £3.75 (women) or around 8% of programme costs at one year, and by £12.58 and £8.70, respectively, or 18% of programme costs after two years of intervention. Potential savings would be increased to around 22% of the cost of the programme at year one with full patient retention and follow-up. Conclusion: Drug prescriptions rise from a minimum at BMI of 20 kg/m2 and steeply above BMI 30 kg/m2. An effective weight management programme in primary care could potentially reduce prescription costs and lead to substantial cost avoidance, such that at least 8% of the programme delivery cost would be recouped from prescribing savings alone in the first year

The Counterweight programme: Prevalence of CVD risk factors by body mass index and the impact of 10% weight change

Objectives: To examine relationships between body mass index (BMI), prevalence of physician-recorded cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in primary care, and changes in risk with 10% weight change. Methods: The Counterweight Project conducted a baseline cross-sectional survey of medical records of 6150 obese (BMI >= 30 kg/ml), 1150 age- and sex-matched overweight (BMI 25 to <30kg/m(2)), and 1150 age- and sex-matched normal weight (BMI 18.5 to <25kg/m(2)) controls, in primary care. Data were collected for the previous 18 months to examine BMI and disease prevalence, and then modelled to show the potential effect of 10% weight loss or gain on risk. Results: Obese patients develop more CVD risk factors than normal weight controls. BMI >= 40 kg/m(2) exhibits increased prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM), odds ratio (OR) men: 6.16 (p = 40 kg/m(2) in women, OR 3.98 (P < 0.001). A 10% weight loss from the sample mean of 32.5 kg/m(2) reduced the OR for type 2 DM by 30% and CVD by 20%, while 10% weight gain increased type 2 DM risk by more than 35% and CVD by 20%. Conclusion: Obesity plays a fundamental role in CVD risk, which is reduced with weight loss. Weight management intervention strategies should be a public health priority to reduce the burden of disease in the population. (C) 2008 Asian Oceanian Association for the Study of Obesity. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved