A randomised controlled trial to compare a range of commercial or primary care led weight reduction programmes with a minimal intervention control for weight loss in obesity: the Lighten Up trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Developed countries are facing a huge rise in the prevalence of obesity and its associated chronic medical problems. In the UK Primary Care Trusts are charged with addressing this in the populations they serve, but evidence about the most effective ways of delivering services is not available. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of a range of weight loss programmes for obese patients in primary care and to determine the characteristics of patients who respond to an invitation to a free weight management programme.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Lighten Up is a randomised controlled trial comparing a range of 12-week commercial and NHS weight reduction programmes with a comparator group who are provided with 12 vouchers enabling free entrance to a local leisure centre. The weight reduction programmes are: (i) Weight Watchers, (ii) Slimming World, (iii) Rosemary Conley, (iv) a group-based dietetics-led programme (Size Down), (v) general practice one-to-one counselling, (vi) pharmacy-led one-to-one counselling, (vii) choice of any of the 6 programmes. People with obesity or overweight with a co-morbid disorder are invited to take part by a letter from their general practitioner. The sample size is 740 participants.</p> <p>The primary outcome is weight loss at programme-end (3 months). Secondary outcomes are weight-loss at one year, self-reported physical activity at 3 and 12 months follow-up and percentage weight-loss at 3 months and one year.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This trial will provide evidence about the effectiveness of a range of different weight management programmes in a primary care population.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN25072883</p

Description and preliminary results from a structured specialist behavioural weight management group intervention:Specialist Lifestyle Management (SLiM) programme

Background -  Specialist Lifestyle Management (SLiM) is a structured patient education and self-management group weight management programme. Each session is run monthly over a 6-month period providing a less intensive long-term approach. The groups are patient-centred incorporating educational, motivational, behavioural and cognitive elements. The theoretical background, programme structure and preliminary results of SLiM are presented. Subjects/methods - The study was a pragmatic service evaluation of obese patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥35 kg/m2 with comorbidity or ≥40 kg/m2 without comorbidity referred to a specialist weight management service in the West Midlands, UK. 828 patients were enrolled within SLiM over a 48-month period. Trained facilitators delivered the programme. Preliminary anonymised data were analysed using the intention-to-treat principle. The primary outcome measure was weight loss at 3 and 6 months with comparisons between completers and non-completers performed. The last observation carried forward was used for missing data. Results - Of the 828 enrolled within SLiM, 464 completed the programme (56%). The mean baseline weight was 135 kg (BMI=49.1 kg/m2) with 87.2% of patients having a BMI≥40 kg/m2 and 12.4% with BMI≥60 kg/m2. The mean weight change of all patients enrolled was −4.1 kg (95% CI −3.6 to −4.6 kg, p=0.0001) at the end of SLiM, with completers (n=464) achieving −5.5 kg (95% CI −4.2 to −6.2 kg, p=0.0001) and non-completers achieving −2.3 kg (p=0.0001). The majority (78.6%) who attended the 6-month programme achieved weight loss with 32.3% achieving a ≥5% weight loss. Conclusions - The SLiM programme is an effective group intervention for the management of severe and complex obesity

Validity of claims made in weight management research: a narrative review of dietetic articles

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The best available evidence demonstrates that conventional weight management has a high long-term failure rate. The ethical implications of continued reliance on an energy deficit approach to weight management are under-explored.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A narrative literature review of journal articles in <it>The Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics </it>from 2004 to 2008.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Although the energy deficit approach to weight management has a high long-term failure rate it continues to dominate research in the field. In the current research agenda, controversies and complexities in the evidence base are inadequately discussed, and claims about the likely success of weight management misrepresent available evidence.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Dietetic literature on weight management fails to meet the standards of evidence based medicine. Research in the field is characterised by speculative claims that fail to accurately represent the available data. There is a corresponding lack of debate on the ethical implications of continuing to promote ineffective treatment regimes and little research into alternative non-weight centred approaches. An alternative health at every size approach is recommended.</p

Outcomes of a community-based weight management programme for morbidly obese populations

Background: Morbid obesity is an ongoing concern worldwide. There is a paucity of research reporting primary care outcomes focussed on complex and morbidly obese populations. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends a specialist, multidisciplinary weight management team for the successful management of such populations. This is the first service evaluation reporting both primary (weight change) and secondary [body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, physical activity levels, fruit and vegetable intake, Rosenberg self-esteem score] outcomes in these patients. Methods: The present study comprised a prospective observational study of a cohort data set for patients (n = 288) attending their 3-month and 6-month (n = 115) assessment appointments at a specialist community weight management programme. Results: Patients had a mean (SD) initial BMI of 45.5 (6.6) kg m–²; 66% were females. Over 80% of patients attending the service lost some weight by 3 months. Average absolute weight loss was 4.11 (4.95) kg at 3 months and 6.30 (8.41) kg at 6 months, equating to 3.28% (3.82%) and 4.90% (6.26%), respectively, demonstrating a statistically significant weight change at both time points (P < 0.001). This meets NICE best practice guidelines for the commissioning of services leading to a minimum of 3% average weight loss, with at least 30% of patients losing at ≥5% of their initial weight. Waist measurement and BMI were reduced significantly at 3 months. Improvements were also seen in physical activity levels, fruit and vegetable consumption, and self-esteem levels (P < 0.001). Conclusions: This service was successful in aiding weight loss in morbidly obese populations. The findings of the present study support the view that weight-loss targets of 3% are realistic

Preventive evidence into practice (PEP) study: implementation of guidelines to prevent primary vascular disease in general practice protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

There are significant gaps in the implementation and uptake of evidence-based guideline recommendations for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes in Australian general practice. This study protocol describes the methodology for a cluster randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a model that aims to improve the implementation of these guidelines in Australian general practice developed by a collaboration between researchers, non-government organisations, and the profession.This study is funded by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Partnership grant (ID 568978) together with the Australian National Heart Foundation, Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, and the BUPA Foundation. MH is supported by a NHMRC Senior Principle Research Fellowship

Moderately overweight and obese patients in general practice: a population based survey

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a main threat to public health in the Western world and is associated with diseases such as diabetes mellitus and coronary heart diseases. Up to now a minority of research studied the relation between obesity and the use of primary health care. In the Netherlands the general practitioner (GP) is the main primary health care provider. The objective of this article is to evaluate GP consultation and prescription of drugs in moderate and severely overweight (obese) persons in the Netherlands. METHODS: Data were used from a representative survey of morbidity in Dutch general practice in 2001. Our study sample consisted of 8,944 adult respondents (18+ years) who participated in an extensive health interview. Interview data were linked to morbidity and prescription registration data from 95 general practices where respondents were listed. Body mass index (BMI) was calculated using self-reported height and weight. Analyses were controlled for clustering within practices as well as for socio-demographic and life style characteristics. RESULTS: Obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) was observed in 8.9% of men and 12.4% of women; for moderate overweight (BMI 25-<30 kg/m2) these percentages were 42.2% and 30.4% respectively. Obese men and women were more likely to consult their GP than persons without overweight. This especially holds for diseases of the endocrine system, the cardiovascular system, the musculoskeletal system, the gastro-intestinal system, and skin problems. Related to this, obese men and women were more likely to receive drugs for the cardiovascular system, the musculoskeletal system, alimentary tract and metabolism (including, for example, antidiabetics), and dermatologicals, but also antibiotics and drugs for the respiratory system. For moderately overweight men and women (BMI 25-<30 kg/m2) smaller but significant differences were found for diseases of the endocrine system, the cardiovascular system, and the musculoskeletal system. CONCLUSION: Obesity increases the workload of Dutch general practitioners and the use of prescribed medication. The current increase in the prevalence of obesity will further increase the use of health care and related costs. Since a large majority of Dutch persons visit their GP over the course of one year, GPs' potential role in effective prevention strategies cannot be denied

The community-based prevention of diabetes (ComPoD) study: A randomised, waiting list controlled trial of a voluntary sector-led diabetes prevention programme

© 2019 The Author(s). Objective: This two-site randomised trial compared the effectiveness of a voluntary sector-led, community-based diabetes prevention programme to a waiting-list control group at 6 months, and included an observational follow-up of the intervention arm to 12 months. Methods: Adults aged 18-75 years at increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes due to elevated blood glucose and being overweight were recruited from primary care practices at two UK sites, with data collected in participants' homes or community venues. Participants were randomised using an online central allocation service. The intervention, comprising the prototype "Living Well, Taking Control" (LWTC) programme, involved four weekly two-hour group sessions held in local community venues to promote changes in diet and physical activity, plus planned follow-up contacts at two, three, six, nine and 12 months alongside 5 hours of additional activities/classes. Waiting list controls received usual care for 6 months before accessing the programme. The primary outcome was weight loss at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), blood pressure, physical activity, diet, health status and well-being. Only researchers conducting analyses were blinded. Results: The target sample of 314 participants (157 each arm) was largely representative of local populations, including 44% men, 26% from ethnic minorities and 33% living in deprived areas. Primary outcome data were available for 285 (91%) participants (141 intervention, 144 control). Between baseline and 6 months, intervention participants on average lost more weight than controls (- 1.7 kg, 95% CI - 2.59 to - 0.85). Higher attendance was associated with greater weight loss (- 3.0 kg, 95% CI - 4.5 to - 1.5). The prototype LWTC programme more than doubled the proportion of participants losing > 5% of their body weight (21% intervention vs. 8% control, OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.36 to 5.90) and improved self-reported dietary behaviour and health status. There were no impacts on HbA1c, blood pressure, physical activity and well-being at 6 months and, amongst intervention participants, few further changes from six to 12-months (e.g. average weight re-gain 0.36 kg, 95% CI - 0.20 to 0.91). There were no serious adverse events but four exercise-related injuries were reported in the intervention arm. Conclusions: This voluntary sector-led diabetes prevention programme reached a broad spectrum of the population and had modest effects on weight-related outcomes, but limited impacts on other diabetes risk factors. Trial registration: Trial registration number: ISRCTN70221670, 5 September 2014 Funder (National Institute for Health Research School for Public Health Research) project reference number: SPHR-EXE-PES-COM

Long-term cost-effectiveness of weight management in primary care

Background: As obesity prevalence and health-care costs increase, Health Care providers must prevent and manage obesity cost-effectively. Methods: Using the 2006 NICE obesity health economic model, a primary care weight management programme ( Counterweight) was analysed, evaluating costs and outcomes associated with weight gain for three obesity-related conditions ( type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, colon cancer). Sensitivity analyses examined different scenarios of weight loss and background ( untreated) weight gain. Results: Mean weight changes in Counterweight attenders was -3 kg and -2.3 kg at 12 and 24 months, both 4 kg below the expected 1 kg/year background weight gain. Counterweight delivery cost was 59.83 pound per patient entered. Even assuming dropouts/non-attenders at 12 months (55%) lost no weight and gained at the background rate, Counterweight was 'dominant' (cost-saving) under 'base-case scenario', where 12-month achieved weight loss was entirely regained over the next 2 years, returning to the expected background weight gain of 1 kg/year. Quality-adjusted Life-Year cost was 2017 pound where background weight gain was limited to 0.5 kg/year, and 2651 pound at 0.3 kg/year. Under a 'best-case scenario', where weights of 12-month-attenders were assumed thereafter to rise at the background rate, 4 kg below non-intervention trajectory ( very close to the observed weight change), Counterweight remained 'dominant' with background weight gains 1 kg, 0.5 kg or 0.3 kg/year. Conclusion: Weight management for obesity in primary care is highly cost-effective even considering only three clinical consequences. Reduced healthcare resources use could offset the total cost of providing the Counterweight Programme, as well as bringing multiple health and Quality of Life benefits