Search

Objective: To assess GPs’ thoughts, feelings, and practices on providing opportunistic weight loss interventions before and after educational training and application in practice. Methods: In an embedded sequential mixed-methods design, 137 GPs delivered a 30-second brief opportunistic intervention to a mean of 14 patients with obesity. To assess GPs’ experiences and views on the intervention, all were invited to complete pre- and post-trial questionnaires and 18 were purposively interviewed. Data were transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive framework analysis. Results: GPs’ attitudes (importance, feasibility, appropriateness, helpfulness, and effectiveness), capacities (comfort, confidence, and knowledge), perceived subjective norms (role expectations), willingness, and intentions on providing weight loss interventions were predominantly improved post-trial. The research setting allowed GPs to depersonalise intervening on obesity and feel more comfortable discussing the topic. Beyond the trial, GPs reverted largely to not intervening, citing barriers that had reportedly been overcome during the trial. Conclusion: GPs who delivered the intervention had positive experiences doing so, shifting their beliefs modestly that this intervention is important, feasible, and acceptable. Practice implications: Given that outside of the trial GPs were apprehensive about intervening without a prompt, developing systems to prompt patients may support implementation.

Background The Brief Intervention for Weight Loss Trial enrolled 1882 consecutively attending primary care patients who were obese and participants were randomised to physicians opportunistically endorsing, offering, and facilitating a referral to a weight loss programme (support) or recommending weight loss (advice). After one year, the support group lost 1.4 kg more (95%CI 0.9 to 2.0): 2.4 kg versus 1.0 kg. We use a cohort simulation to predict effects on disease incidence, quality of life, and healthcare costs over 20 years. Methods Randomly sampling from the trial population, we created a virtual cohort of 20 million adults and assigned baseline morbidity. We applied the weight loss observed in the trial and assumed weight regain over four years. Using epidemiological data, we assigned the incidence of 12 weight-related diseases depending on baseline disease status, age, gender, body mass index. From a healthcare perspective, we calculated the quality adjusted life years (QALYs) accruing and calculated the incremental difference between trial arms in costs expended in delivering the intervention and healthcare costs accruing. We discounted future costs and benefits at 1.5% over 20 years. Results Compared with advice, the support intervention reduced the cumulative incidence of weight-related disease by 722/100,000 people, 0.33% of all weight-related disease. The incremental cost of support over advice was £2.01million/100,000. However, the support intervention reduced health service costs by £5.86 million/100,000 leading to a net saving of £3.85 million/100,000. The support intervention produced 992 QALYs/100,000 people relative to advice. Conclusions A brief intervention in which physicians opportunistically endorse, offer, and facilitate a referral to a behavioural weight management service to patients with a BMI of at least 30 kg/m2 reduces healthcare costs and improves health more than advising weight loss.

Guidelines suggest that very-low-energy diets (VLEDs) should be used to treat obesity only when rapid weight loss is clinically indicated because of concerns about rapid weight regain. Literature databases were searched from inception to November 2014. Randomized trials were included where the intervention included a VLED and the comparator was no intervention or an intervention that could be given in a general medical setting in adults that were overweight. Two reviewers characterized the population, intervention, control groups, outcomes and appraised quality. The primary outcome was weight change at 12 months from baseline. Compared with a behavioural programme alone, VLEDs combined with a behavioural programme achieved -3.9 kg [95% confidence interval (CI) -6.7 to -1.1] at 1 year. The difference at 24 months was -1.4 kg (95%CI -2.6 to -0.2) and at 38-60 months was -1.3 kg (95%CI -2.9 to 0.2). Nineteen per cent of the VLED group discontinued treatment prematurely compared with 20% of the comparator groups, relative risk 0.96 (0.56 to 1.66). One serious adverse event, hospitalization with cholecystitis, was reported in the VLED group and none in the comparator group. Very-low-energy diets with behavioural programmes achieve greater long-term weight loss than behavioural programmes alone, appear tolerable and lead to few adverse events suggesting they could be more widely used than current guidelines suggest.