The equity impact of brief opportunistic interventions to promote weight loss in primary care: secondary analysis of the BWeL randomised trial.


Journal

BMC medicine
ISSN: 1741-7015
Titre abrégé: BMC Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190723

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 03 2019
Historique:
received: 28 08 2018
accepted: 08 02 2019
entrez: 2 3 2019
pubmed: 2 3 2019
medline: 14 11 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Guidelines recommend that clinicians should make brief opportunistic behavioural interventions to patients who are obese to increase the uptake of effective weight loss programmes. The objective was to assess the effect of this policy on socioeconomic equity. One thousand eight hundred eighty-two consecutively attending patients with obesity and who were not seeking support for weight loss from their GP were enrolled in a trial. Towards the end of each consultation, GPs randomly assigned participants to one of two 30-s interventions. In the active intervention (support arm), the GP offered referral to a weight management group. In the control intervention (advice arm), the GP advised the patient that their health would benefit from weight loss. Agreement to attend a behavioural weight loss programme, attendance at the programme and weight loss at 12 months were analysed by socioeconomic status, measured by postcode using the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). Mean weight loss was 2.43 kg (sd 6.49) in the support group and 1.04 kg (sd 5.50) for the advice only group, but these effects were moderated by IMD (p = 0.039 for the interaction). In the support arm, weight loss was greater in higher socioeconomic groups. Participants from lower socioeconomic backgrounds were more likely to accept the offer and equally likely to attend a weight loss referral but attended fewer sessions. Adjusting for these sequentially reduced the gradient for the association of socioeconomic status with weight loss from + 0.035 to - 0.001 kg/IMD point. In the advice only arm, 10% took effective action to promote weight loss. The decision to seek support for weight loss outside of the trial did not differ by socioeconomic status, but weight loss among deprived participants who used external support was greater than among more affluent participants (p = 0.025). Participants' responses to GPs' brief opportunistic interventions to promote weight loss differed by socioeconomic status and trial arm. In the support arm, more deprived people lost less weight because they attended fewer sessions at the programme. In the advice arm, more deprived people who sought and paid for support for weight loss themselves lost more weight than more affluent people who sought support. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN26563137 . Date of registration: January 3, 2013; date of first participant recruited: June 4, 2014.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Guidelines recommend that clinicians should make brief opportunistic behavioural interventions to patients who are obese to increase the uptake of effective weight loss programmes. The objective was to assess the effect of this policy on socioeconomic equity.
METHODS
One thousand eight hundred eighty-two consecutively attending patients with obesity and who were not seeking support for weight loss from their GP were enrolled in a trial. Towards the end of each consultation, GPs randomly assigned participants to one of two 30-s interventions. In the active intervention (support arm), the GP offered referral to a weight management group. In the control intervention (advice arm), the GP advised the patient that their health would benefit from weight loss. Agreement to attend a behavioural weight loss programme, attendance at the programme and weight loss at 12 months were analysed by socioeconomic status, measured by postcode using the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD).
RESULTS
Mean weight loss was 2.43 kg (sd 6.49) in the support group and 1.04 kg (sd 5.50) for the advice only group, but these effects were moderated by IMD (p = 0.039 for the interaction). In the support arm, weight loss was greater in higher socioeconomic groups. Participants from lower socioeconomic backgrounds were more likely to accept the offer and equally likely to attend a weight loss referral but attended fewer sessions. Adjusting for these sequentially reduced the gradient for the association of socioeconomic status with weight loss from + 0.035 to - 0.001 kg/IMD point. In the advice only arm, 10% took effective action to promote weight loss. The decision to seek support for weight loss outside of the trial did not differ by socioeconomic status, but weight loss among deprived participants who used external support was greater than among more affluent participants (p = 0.025).
CONCLUSION
Participants' responses to GPs' brief opportunistic interventions to promote weight loss differed by socioeconomic status and trial arm. In the support arm, more deprived people lost less weight because they attended fewer sessions at the programme. In the advice arm, more deprived people who sought and paid for support for weight loss themselves lost more weight than more affluent people who sought support.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN26563137 . Date of registration: January 3, 2013; date of first participant recruited: June 4, 2014.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30819170
doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1284-y
pii: 10.1186/s12916-019-1284-y
pmc: PMC6396456
doi:

Banques de données

ISRCTN
['ISRCTN26563137']

Types de publication

Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

51

Subventions

Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/J000515/1
Pays : United Kingdom

Références

Obes Rev. 2016 Mar;17(3):225-34
pubmed: 26775902
BMC Public Health. 2011 Jun 06;11:434
pubmed: 21645343
Lancet. 2017 Jun 3;389(10085):2214-2225
pubmed: 28478041
Lancet. 2016 Nov 19;388(10059):2492-2500
pubmed: 27789061
Public Health. 2006 Sep;120(9):872-81
pubmed: 16870218
Lancet. 2015 Oct 31;386(10005):1716-7
pubmed: 26545418
BMJ. 2018 Sep 26;362:k3760
pubmed: 30257983
BMJ. 2017 Nov 14;359:j4849
pubmed: 29138133
Lancet. 2016 May 28;387(10034):2207-17
pubmed: 27045735
Br J Gen Pract. 2016 Apr;66(645):e258-63
pubmed: 26906629
Int J Obes (Lond). 2016 Jan;40(1):181-5
pubmed: 26228458
Bull World Health Organ. 2004 Dec;82(12):940-6
pubmed: 15654409
Obes Rev. 2016 Oct;17(10):1001-11
pubmed: 27324830
BMC Public Health. 2014 May 12;14:444
pubmed: 24884639
BMC Public Health. 2015 Sep 10;15:882
pubmed: 26359180
Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2012 Aug;37(4):753-72
pubmed: 22765839
Lancet. 2011 Oct 22;378(9801):1485-92
pubmed: 21906798
Trials. 2013 Nov 19;14:393
pubmed: 24252510
BMC Public Health. 2015 May 02;15:457
pubmed: 25934496
BMC Public Health. 2006 Jun 12;6:151
pubmed: 16768792
Ann Fam Med. 2013 May-Jun;11(3):251-7
pubmed: 23690325
PLoS One. 2009 Aug 13;4(8):e6624
pubmed: 19675667
Obes Rev. 2014 Nov;15(11):920-32
pubmed: 25112559
BMC Public Health. 2013 Mar 16;13:232
pubmed: 23496915
Diabetes Care. 2014 Apr;37(4):922-33
pubmed: 24652723
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2000 Feb;24(2):164-70
pubmed: 10702766
Public Health. 2012 Sep;126 Suppl 1:S4-S10
pubmed: 22784581

Auteurs

J Graham (J)

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.

K Tudor (K)

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK. kate.tudor@phc.ox.ac.uk.

S A Jebb (SA)

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.

A Lewis (A)

Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.

S Tearne (S)

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.

P Adab (P)

Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.

R Begh (R)

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.

K Jolly (K)

Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.

A Daley (A)

School of Sport, Exercise, and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, LE11 3TU, UK.

A Farley (A)

Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.

D Lycett (D)

Faculty Research Centre for Advances in Behavioural Science, Coventry University, Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK.

A Nickless (A)

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.

P Aveyard (P)

Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH