BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of randomised controlled trials of weight management in primary care. AIM: To ascertain the feasibility of a full trial of a nurse-led weight-management programme in general practice. DESIGN OF STUDY: Factorial randomised control trial. SETTING:Primary care, UK. METHOD: A total of 123 adults (80.3% women, mean age 47.2 years) with body mass index > or =27 kg/m(2), recruited from eight practices, were randomised to receive structured lifestyle support (n = 30), structured lifestyle support plus pedometer (n = 31), usual care (n = 31), or usual care plus pedometer (n = 31) for a 12-week period. RESULTS: A total of 103 participants were successfully followed up. The adjusted mean difference in weight in structured support compared to usual care groups was -2.63 kg (95% confidence interval [CI] = -4.06 to -1.20 kg), and for pedometer compared to no pedometer groups it was -0.11 kg (95% CI = -1.52 to 1.30 kg). One in three participants in the structured-support groups (17/50, 34.0%) lost 5% or more of their initial weight, compared to less than one in five (10/53, 18.9%) in usual-care groups; provision of a pedometer made little difference (14/48, 29.2% pedometer; 13/55, 23.6% no pedometer). Difference in waist circumference change between structured-support and usual-care groups was -1.80 cm (95% CI = -3.39 to -0.20 cm), and between the pedometer and no pedometer groups it was -0.84 cm (95% CI = -2.42 to 0.73 cm). When asked about their experience of study participation, most participants found structured support helpful. CONCLUSION: The structured lifestyle support package could make substantial contributions to improving weight-management services. A trial of the intervention in general practice is feasible and practicable.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of randomised controlled trials of weight management in primary care. AIM: To ascertain the feasibility of a full trial of a nurse-led weight-management programme in general practice. DESIGN OF STUDY: Factorial randomised control trial. SETTING: Primary care, UK. METHOD: A total of 123 adults (80.3% women, mean age 47.2 years) with body mass index > or =27 kg/m(2), recruited from eight practices, were randomised to receive structured lifestyle support (n = 30), structured lifestyle support plus pedometer (n = 31), usual care (n = 31), or usual care plus pedometer (n = 31) for a 12-week period. RESULTS: A total of 103 participants were successfully followed up. The adjusted mean difference in weight in structured support compared to usual care groups was -2.63 kg (95% confidence interval [CI] = -4.06 to -1.20 kg), and for pedometer compared to no pedometer groups it was -0.11 kg (95% CI = -1.52 to 1.30 kg). One in three participants in the structured-support groups (17/50, 34.0%) lost 5% or more of their initial weight, compared to less than one in five (10/53, 18.9%) in usual-care groups; provision of a pedometer made little difference (14/48, 29.2% pedometer; 13/55, 23.6% no pedometer). Difference in waist circumference change between structured-support and usual-care groups was -1.80 cm (95% CI = -3.39 to -0.20 cm), and between the pedometer and no pedometer groups it was -0.84 cm (95% CI = -2.42 to 0.73 cm). When asked about their experience of study participation, most participants found structured support helpful. CONCLUSION: The structured lifestyle support package could make substantial contributions to improving weight-management services. A trial of the intervention in general practice is feasible and practicable.
Authors: Pamela Davis Martin; Paula C Rhode; Gareth R Dutton; Stephen M Redmann; Donna H Ryan; Phillip J Brantley Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Cynthia D Mulrow; Elaine Chiquette; L Angel; Richard Grimm; John Cornell; Carolyn D Summerbell; Betsy B Anagnostelis; M Brand Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2008-10-08
Authors: Caroline R Richardson; Tiffany L Newton; Jobby J Abraham; Ananda Sen; Masahito Jimbo; Ann M Swartz Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Antonia F H Smelt; Gerda M van der Weele; Jeanet W Blom; Jacobijn Gussekloo; Willem J J Assendelft Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: David M Levine; Stella Savarimuthu; Allison Squires; Joseph Nicholson; Melanie Jay Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-08-19 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Rebecca A Jones; Emma R Lawlor; Jack M Birch; Manal I Patel; André O Werneck; Erin Hoare; Simon J Griffin; Esther M F van Sluijs; Stephen J Sharp; Amy L Ahern Journal: Obes Rev Date: 2020-10-25 Impact factor: 9.213
Authors: Freya Macmillan; Claire Fitzsimons; Karen Black; Malcolm H Granat; Margaret P Grant; Madeleine Grealy; Hazel Macdonald; Alex McConnachie; David A Rowe; Rebecca Shaw; Dawn A Skelton; Nanette Mutrie Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-02-19 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Kate Jolly; Amanda Daley; Peymane Adab; Amanda Lewis; John Denley; Jane Beach; Paul Aveyard Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-07-27 Impact factor: 3.295