Search

Highlights • We study the role played by political factors in shaping the BMI distribution. • We allow for differing covariate effects across the BMI distribution. • We allow for heteroskedasticity across macro regions. • Democratic systems reduce under-weight, but increase overweight/obesity. • Effective political competition reduces both under-weight and obesity., We construct a rich dataset covering 47 developing countries over the years 1990–2007, combining several micro and macro level data sources to explore the link between political factors and body mass index (BMI). We implement a heteroskedastic generalized ordered logit model allowing for different covariate effects across the BMI distribution and accounting for the unequal BMI dispersion by geographical area. We find that systems with democratic qualities are more likely to reduce under-weight, but increase overweight/obesity, whereas effective political competition does entail double-benefits in the form of reducing both under-weight and obesity. Our results are robust to the introduction of country fixed effects.

BACKGROUND: Existing reviews identify numerous studies of the relationship between urban built environment characteristics and obesity. These reviews do not generally distinguish between cross-sectional observational studies using single equation analytical techniques and other studies that may support more robust causal inferences. More advanced analytical techniques, including the use of instrumental variables and regression discontinuity designs, can help mitigate biases that arise from differences in observable and unobservable characteristics between intervention and control groups, and may represent a realistic alternative to scarcely-used randomised experiments. This review sought first to identify, and second to compare the results of analyses from, studies using more advanced analytical techniques or study designs. METHODS: In March 2013, studies of the relationship between urban built environment characteristics and obesity were identified that incorporated (i) more advanced analytical techniques specified in recent UK Medical Research Council guidance on evaluating natural experiments, or (ii) other relevant methodological approaches including randomised experiments, structural equation modelling or fixed effects panel data analysis. RESULTS: Two randomised experimental studies and twelve observational studies were identified. Within-study comparisons of results, where authors had undertaken at least two analyses using different techniques, indicated that effect sizes were often critically affected by the method employed, and did not support the commonly held view that cross-sectional, single equation analyses systematically overestimate the strength of association. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the use of more advanced methods of analysis does not appear necessarily to undermine the observed strength of association between urban built environment characteristics and obesity when compared to more commonly-used cross-sectional, single equation analyses. Given observed differences in the results of studies using different techniques, further consideration should be given to how evidence gathered from studies using different analytical approaches is appraised, compared and aggregated in evidence synthesis.

Background\ud \ud Recent trials demonstrate the acceptability and short term efficacy of primary care referral to a commercial weight loss provider for weight management. Commissioners now need information on the optimal duration of intervention and the longer term outcomes and cost effectiveness of such treatment to give best value for money.\ud \ud \ud \ud Methods/Design\ud \ud This multicentre, randomised controlled trial with a parallel design will recruit 1200 overweight adults (BMI ≥28 kg/m2) through their primary care provider. They will be randomised in a 2:5:5 allocation to: Brief Intervention, Commercial Programme for 12 weeks, or Commercial Programme for 52 weeks. Participants will be followed up for two years, with assessments at 0, 3, 12 and 24 months. The sequential primary research questions are whether the CP interventions achieve significantly greater weight loss from baseline to 12 months than BI, and whether CP52 achieves significantly greater weight loss from baseline to 12 months than CP12. The primary outcomes will be an intention to treat analysis of between treatment differences in body weight at 12 months. Clinical effectiveness will be also be assessed by measures of weight, fat mass, and blood pressure at each time point and biochemical risk factors at 12 months. Self-report questionnaires will collect data on psychosocial factors associated with adherence, weight-loss and weight-loss maintenance. A within-trial and long-term cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted from an NHS perspective. Qualitative methods will be used to examine the participant experience.\ud \ud \ud \ud Discussion\ud \ud The current trial compares the clinical and cost effectiveness of referral to a commercial provider with a brief intervention. This trial will specifically examine whether providing longer weight-loss treatment without altering content or intensity (12 months commercial referral vs. 12 weeks) leads to greater weight loss at one year and is sustained at 2 years. It will also evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of the three interventions. This study has direct implications for primary care practice in the UK and will provide important information to inform the decisions of practitioners and commissioners about service provision.\ud \ud \ud \ud Trial Registration\ud \ud Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN82857232. Date registered: 15/10/2012.

Reducing health inequalities is an important part of health policy in most countries. This paper discusses from an economic perspective how government policy can influence health inequalities, particularly focusing on the outcome of performance targets in England, and the role of sectors of the economy outside the health service – the ‘social determinants’ of health - in delivering these targets.

BACKGROUND: Non-communicable diseases (NCDs), while traditionally considered a "rich world"-problem, have been spreading fast in low and middle income countries and by now account for a large share of mortality and ill-health in these countries, too. In addition to the disease burden, NCDs may also impose a substantial economic cost. One way in which NCDs might impact people's economic well-being may be via the out-of-pocket expenditures required to cover treatment and other costs associated with suffering from an NCD. METHODS: In this commentary, we identify and discuss the methodological challenges related to cross-country comparison of-out-of-pocket and catastrophic out-of-pocket health care expenditures, attributable to NCDs, focussing on low and middle income countries. RESULTS: There is significant evidence of substantial cost burden placed by NCDs on patients living in low and middle income countries, with most of it being heavily concentrated among low socioeconomic status groups. However, a large variation in definition of COOPE between studies prevents cross-country comparison. In addition, as most studies tend to be observational, causal inferences are often not possible. This is further complicated by the cross-sectional nature of studies, small sample sizes, and/or limited duration of follow-up of patients. Most evidence for certain conditions (e.g., cancer) tends to be collected in high-income countries only. CONCLUSIONS: The definitions for COOPEs should be standardized as much as possible, to enable comparison of COOPE prevalence between countries. Prospective study design using larger samples representative of broader sections of local population, collecting better data on both direct and indirect treatment costs is also needed.

$\textbf{Objectives}$ Stakeholder engagement and public involvement are considered as integral to developing effective public health interventions and is encouraged across all phases of the research cycle. However, limited guidelines and appropriate tools exist to facilitate stakeholder engagement—especially during the intervention prioritisation phase. We present the findings of an online ‘Delphi’ study that engaged stakeholders (including young people) in the process of prioritising secondary school environment-focused interventions that aim to increase physical activity. $\textbf{Setting }$ Web-based data collection using an online Delphi tool enabling participation of geographically diverse stakeholders. $\textbf{Participants }$ 37 stakeholders participated, including young people (age 13–16 years), parents, teachers, public health practitioners, academics and commissioners; 33 participants completed both rounds. $\textbf{Primary and secondary outcome measures}$ Participants were asked to prioritise a (short-listed) selection of school environment-focused interventions (eg, standing desks, outdoor design changes) based on the criteria of ‘reach’, ‘equality’, ‘acceptability’, ‘feasibility’, ‘effectiveness’ and ‘cost’. Participants were also asked to rank the criteria and the effectiveness outcomes (eg, physical activity, academic achievement, school enjoyment) from most to least important. Following feedback along with any new information provided, participants completed round 2 4 weeks later. $\textbf{Results }$ The intervention prioritisation process was feasible to conduct and comments from participants indicated satisfaction with the process. Consensus regarding intervention strategies was achieved among the varied groups of stakeholders, with ‘active lessons’ being the favoured approach. Participants ranked ‘mental health and well-being’ as the most important outcome followed by ‘enjoyment of school’. The most important criteria was ‘effectiveness’, followed by ‘feasibility’. $\textbf{Conclusions }$ This novel approach to engaging a wide variety of stakeholders in the research process was feasible to conduct and acceptable to participants. It also provided insightful information relating to how stakeholders prioritise interventions. The approach could be extended beyond the specific project to be a useful tool for researchers and practitioners.

$\textit{Background}$ Evidence exist that primary care referral to an open-group behavioural programme is an effective strategy for management of obesity, but little evidence on optimal intervention duration is available. We aimed to establish whether 52-week referral to an open-group weight-management programme would achieve greater weight loss and improvements in a range of health outcomes and be more cost-effective than the current practice of 12-week referrals. $\textit{Methods}$ In this non-blinded, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, we recruited participants who were aged 18 years or older and had body-mass index (BMI) of 28 kg/m² or higher from 23 primary care practices in England. Participants were randomly assigned (2:5:5) to brief advice and self-help materials, a weight-management programme (Weight Watchers) for 12 weeks, or the same weight-management programme for 52 weeks. We followed-up participants over 2 years. The primary outcome was weight at 1 year of follow-up, analysed with mixed-effects models according to intention-to-treat principles and adjusted for centre and baseline weight. In a hierarchical closed-testing procedure, we compared combined behavioural programme arms with brief intervention, then compared the 12-week programme and 52-week programme. We did a within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis using person-level data and modelled outcomes over a 25-year time horizon using microsimulation. This study is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN82857232. $\textit{Findings}$ Between Oct 18, 2012, and Feb 10, 2014, we enrolled 1269 participants. 1267 eligible participants were randomly assigned to the brief intervention (n=211), the 12-week programme (n=528), and the 52-week programme (n=528). Two participants in the 12-week programme had been found to be ineligible shortly after randomisation and were excluded from the analysis. 823 (65%) of 1267 participants completed an assessment at 1 year and 856 (68%) participants at 2 years. All eligible participants were included in the analyses. At 1 year, mean weight changes in the groups were –3·26 kg (brief intervention), –4·75 kg (12-week programme), and –6·76 kg (52-week programme). Participants in the behavioural programme lost more weight than those in the brief intervention (adjusted difference –2·71 kg, 95% CI –3·86 to –1·55; p, This trial was funded by the National Prevention Research Initiative grant MR/J000493/1. The cost of the Weight Watchers® programme and the costs of blood sampling and analysis were funded by Weight Watchers International as part of an MRC Industrial Collaboration Award.