Article

A pragmatic randomised controlled trial in primary care of the Camden Weight Loss (CAMWEL) programme.

London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
BMJ Open (Impact Factor: 2.06). 05/2012; 2(3). DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000793
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate effectiveness of a structured one-to-one behaviour change programme on weight loss in obese and overweight individuals.
Randomised controlled trial.
23 general practices in Camden, London.
381 adults with body mass index ≥25 kg/m(2) randomly assigned to intervention (n=191) or control (n=190) group.
A structured one-to-one programme, delivered over 14 visits during 12 months by trained advisors in three primary care centres compared with usual care in general practice.
Changes in weight, per cent body fat, waist circumference, blood pressure and heart rate between baseline and 12 months.
217/381 (57.0%) participants were assessed at 12 months: missing values were imputed. The difference in mean weight change between the intervention and control groups was not statistically significant (0.70 kg (0.67 to 2.17, p=0.35)), although a higher proportion of the intervention group (32.7%) than the control group (20.4%) lost 5% or more of their baseline weight (OR: 1.80 (1.02 to 3.18, p=0.04)). The intervention group achieved a lower mean heart rate (mean difference 3.68 beats per minute (0.31 to 7.04, p=0.03)) than the control group. Participants in the intervention group reported higher satisfaction and more positive experiences of their care compared with the control group.
Although there is no significant difference in mean weight loss between the intervention and control groups, trained non-specialist advisors can deliver a structured programme and achieve clinically beneficial weight loss in some patients in primary care. The intervention group also reported a higher level of satisfaction with the support received. Primary care interventions are unlikely to be sufficient to tackle the obesity epidemic and effective population-wide measures are also necessary.
Trial registrationClincaltrials.gov NCT00891943.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Kiran Nanchahal, Jun 22, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
211 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening for and treating obesity. However, there are many barriers to successfully treating obesity in primary care (PC). Technology-assisted weight loss interventions offer novel ways of improving treatment, but trials are overwhelmingly conducted outside of PC and may not translate well into this setting. We conducted a systematic review of technology-assisted weight loss interventions specifically tested in PC settings.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 01/2015; 30(1):107-117. DOI:10.1007/s11606-014-2987-6 · 3.42 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of behavioural weight management programmes and examine how programme characteristics affect mean weight loss. Randomized controlled trials of multicomponent behavioural weight management programmes in overweight and obese adults were included. References were obtained through systematic searches of electronic databases (conducted November 2012), screening reference lists and contacting experts. Two reviewers extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. Thirty-seven studies, representing over 16,000 participants, were included. The pooled mean difference in weight loss at 12 months was −2.8 kg (95% confidence interval [CI] −3.6 to −2.1, P < 0.001). I2 indicated that 93% of the variability in outcome was due to differences in programme effectiveness. Meta-analysis showed no evidence that supervised physical activity sessions (mean difference 1.1 kg, 95% CI −2.65 to 4.79, P = 0.08), more frequent contact (mean difference −0.3 kg, 95% CI −0.7 to 0.2, P = 0.25) or in-person contact (mean difference 0.0 kg, 95% CI −1.8 to 1.8, P = 0.06) were related to programme effectiveness at 12 months. In meta-regression, calorie counting (−3.3 kg, 95% CI −4.6 to −2.0, P = 0.027), contact with a dietitian (−1.5 kg, 95% CI −2.9 to −0.2, P < 0.001) and use of behaviour change techniques that compare participants' behaviour with others (−1.5 kg, 95% CI −2.9 to −0.1, P = 0.032) were associated with greater weight loss. There was no evidence that other programme characteristics were associated with programme effectiveness. Most but not all behavioural weight management programmes are effective. Programmes that support participants to count calories or include a dietitian may be more effective, but the programme characteristics explaining success are mainly unknown.
    Obesity Reviews 04/2014; 15(7). DOI:10.1111/obr.12165 · 7.86 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Obesity is a major public health issue. This review updates the evidence on the effectiveness of behavioural and pharmacologic treatments for overweight and obesity in adults. We updated the search conducted in a previous review. Randomized trials of primary-care-relevant behavioural (diet, exercise and lifestyle) and pharmacologic (orlistat and metformin) with or without behavioural treatments in overweight and obese adults were included if 12-month, postbaseline data were provided for weight outcomes. Studies reporting harms were included regardless of design. Data were extracted and pooled wherever possible for 5 weight outcomes, 6 secondary health outcomes and 4 adverse events categories. We identified 68 studies, most consisted of short-term (≤ 12 mo) treatments using diet (n = 8), exercise (n = 4), diet and exercise (n = 10), lifestyle (n = 19), orlistat (n = 25) or metformin (n = 4). Compared with the control groups, intervention participants had a greater weight loss of -3.02 kg (95% confidence interval [CI] -3.52 to -2.52), a greater reduction in waist circumference of -2.78 cm (95% CI -3.34 to -2.22) and a greater reduction in body mass index of -1.11 kg/m(2) (95% CI -1.39 to -0.84). The relative risk for loss of ≥ 5% body weight was 1.77 (95% CI 1.58-1.99, [number needed to treat 5, 95% CI 4-7]), and the relative risk for loss of ≥ 10% body weight was 1.91 (95% CI 1.69-2.16, [number needed to treat 9, 95% CI 7-12]). Incidence of type 2 diabetes was lower among pre-diabetic intervention participants (relative risk 0.62 [95% CI 0.50-0.77], number needed to treat 17 [95% CI 13-29]). With prevalence rates for type 2 diabetes on the rise, weight loss coupled with a reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes could potentially have a significant benefit on population health and a possible reduction in need for drug treatments for glycemic control. There is moderate quality evidence that behavioural and pharmacologic plus behvioural, treatments for overweight and obesity in adults lead to clinically important reductions in weight and incidence of type 2 diabetes in pre-diabetic populations. Registration: PROSPERO no. CRD42012002753.
    10/2014; 2(4):E306-E317. DOI:10.9778/cmajo.20140012