BACKGROUND: The Counterweight Programme is a proven model for the management of obesity in the UK, evaluated over 5 years (2000-05) and demonstrating clinical and cost effectiveness. The Scottish Government commissioned three phases of Counterweight implementation during the period 2006-08. The first two phases linked the Counterweight Programme to a primary care cardiovascular disease prevention programme; the third phase was commissioned independent of other interventions. Aim. To assess the implementation of the Counterweight Programme in 13 Health Boards in Scotland and compare 12-month outcomes with published Counterweight data. METHODS: Patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m(2) or BMI ≥ 28 kg/m(2) with at least one co-morbidity were screened for the Counterweight Programme. Patients were asked to attend nine structured appointments with a trained Counterweight Programme practitioner over 12 months. RESULTS: Six thousand seven hundred and fifteen patients from 184 general practices, 16 pharmacies and one centralized community-based service in 13 Health Boards, with a mean BMI of 37 kg/m(2) were enrolled in the Counterweight Programme. Twenty-six per cent had a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m(2). Attendance for patients at 3, 6 and 12 months follow-up was 55%, 37% and 28%. Of those who attended at 12 months, 35.2% had maintained a weight loss of ≥5% compared to 30.7% in the original evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of the Counterweight Programme in Scotland demonstrated consistency in characteristics of patients enrolled into the programme. There was evidence of higher loss to follow-up in a population not routinely engaging with primary care but evidence of greater weight losses among those who attended.
BACKGROUND: The Counterweight Programme is a proven model for the management of obesity in the UK, evaluated over 5 years (2000-05) and demonstrating clinical and cost effectiveness. The Scottish Government commissioned three phases of Counterweight implementation during the period 2006-08. The first two phases linked the Counterweight Programme to a primary care cardiovascular disease prevention programme; the third phase was commissioned independent of other interventions. Aim. To assess the implementation of the Counterweight Programme in 13 Health Boards in Scotland and compare 12-month outcomes with published Counterweight data. METHODS:Patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m(2) or BMI ≥ 28 kg/m(2) with at least one co-morbidity were screened for the Counterweight Programme. Patients were asked to attend nine structured appointments with a trained Counterweight Programme practitioner over 12 months. RESULTS: Six thousand seven hundred and fifteen patients from 184 general practices, 16 pharmacies and one centralized community-based service in 13 Health Boards, with a mean BMI of 37 kg/m(2) were enrolled in the Counterweight Programme. Twenty-six per cent had a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m(2). Attendance for patients at 3, 6 and 12 months follow-up was 55%, 37% and 28%. Of those who attended at 12 months, 35.2% had maintained a weight loss of ≥5% compared to 30.7% in the original evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of the Counterweight Programme in Scotland demonstrated consistency in characteristics of patients enrolled into the programme. There was evidence of higher loss to follow-up in a population not routinely engaging with primary care but evidence of greater weight losses among those who attended.
Authors: Michael Lean; Naomi Brosnahan; Philip McLoone; Louise McCombie; Anna Bell Higgs; Hazel Ross; Mhairi Mackenzie; Eleanor Grieve; Nick Finer; John Reckless; David Haslam; Billy Sloan; David Morrison Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: M Aceves-Martins; C Robertson; D Cooper; A Avenell; F Stewart; P Aveyard; M de Bruin Journal: J Hum Nutr Diet Date: 2020-02-06 Impact factor: 3.089
Authors: Jane R Smith; Colin J Greaves; Janice L Thompson; Rod S Taylor; Matthew Jones; Rosy Armstrong; Sarah Moorlock; Ann Griffin; Emma Solomon-Moore; Michele S Y Biddle; Lisa Price; Charles Abraham Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: David Morrison; Philip McLoone; Naomi Brosnahan; Louise McCombie; Andrea Smith; Janie Gordon Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-03-27 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Elizabeth A Sturgiss; Nicholas Elmitt; Emily Haesler; Chris van Weel; Kirsty A Douglas Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-02-16 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Mirthe Muilwijk; Mary Nicolaou; Samera A Qureshi; Carlos Celis-Morales; Jason M R Gill; Aziz Sheikh; Naveed Sattar; Erik Beune; Anne Karen Jenum; Karien Stronks; Irene G M van Valkengoed Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-07-16 Impact factor: 3.240