BACKGROUND: Three randomised controlled trials have provided strong evidence that Weight Watchers(®) is an effective weight-loss programme but there is insufficient evidence to determine whether three other weight-loss programmes are also effective. AIM: To examine whether other group-based weight-loss programmes were not inferior to Weight Watchers. DESIGN AND SETTING: A prospective cohort study using a non-inferiority analysis of 3290 adults referred through primary care. METHOD Participants who met the eligibility criteria for primary care obesity management treatment chose a free programme (Weight Watchers, Rosemary Conley Diet and Fitness Clubs, Slimming World or a NHS group programme) lasting 3 months; they were weighed at 3 months (programme end) and self-reported their weight at 12 months. RESULTS: At 3 months, weight loss achieved through Rosemary Conley and Slimming World was not inferior to Weight Watchers. The NHS group programme was inferior. At 12 months Slimming World and Rosemary Conley were not inferior to Weight Watchers, although participants using Slimming World lost significantly more weight than those using Weight Watchers. Data on the NHS group programme were inconclusive. CONCLUSION: In the short term all commercial weight-loss programmes appear to result in similar weight loss but the NHS alternative appears to produce less weight loss. At 12 months Slimming World led to greater weight loss but the differences between commercial programmes was small and of minor clinical importance.
BACKGROUND: Three randomised controlled trials have provided strong evidence that Weight Watchers(®) is an effective weight-loss programme but there is insufficient evidence to determine whether three other weight-loss programmes are also effective. AIM: To examine whether other group-based weight-loss programmes were not inferior to Weight Watchers. DESIGN AND SETTING: A prospective cohort study using a non-inferiority analysis of 3290 adults referred through primary care. METHOD Participants who met the eligibility criteria for primary care obesity management treatment chose a free programme (Weight Watchers, Rosemary Conley Diet and Fitness Clubs, Slimming World or a NHS group programme) lasting 3 months; they were weighed at 3 months (programme end) and self-reported their weight at 12 months. RESULTS: At 3 months, weight loss achieved through Rosemary Conley and Slimming World was not inferior to Weight Watchers. The NHS group programme was inferior. At 12 months Slimming World and Rosemary Conley were not inferior to Weight Watchers, although participants using Slimming World lost significantly more weight than those using Weight Watchers. Data on the NHS group programme were inconclusive. CONCLUSION: In the short term all commercial weight-loss programmes appear to result in similar weight loss but the NHS alternative appears to produce less weight loss. At 12 months Slimming World led to greater weight loss but the differences between commercial programmes was small and of minor clinical importance.
Entities:
Keywords:
obesity; primary health care; weight loss; weight reduction programmes
Authors: Stanley Heshka; James W Anderson; Richard L Atkinson; Frank L Greenway; James O Hill; Stephen D Phinney; Ronette L Kolotkin; Karen Miller-Kovach; F Xavier Pi-Sunyer Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-04-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: William C Knowler; Sarah E Fowler; Richard F Hamman; Costas A Christophi; Heather J Hoffman; Anne T Brenneman; Janet O Brown-Friday; Ronald Goldberg; Elizabeth Venditti; David M Nathan Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-10-29 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Susan A Jebb; Amy L Ahern; Ashley D Olson; Louise M Aston; Christina Holzapfel; Julia Stoll; Ulrike Amann-Gassner; Annie E Simpson; Nicholas R Fuller; Suzanne Pearson; Namson S Lau; Adrian P Mander; Hans Hauner; Ian D Caterson Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-09-07 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Daphne P Guh; Wei Zhang; Nick Bansback; Zubin Amarsi; C Laird Birmingham; Aslam H Anis Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2009-03-25 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Kimberly A Gudzune; Ruchi S Doshi; Ambereen K Mehta; Zoobia W Chaudhry; David K Jacobs; Rachit M Vakil; Clare J Lee; Sara N Bleich; Jeanne M Clark Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-04-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jennifer Huberty; Jenn A Leiferman; Abbey R Kruper; Lisette T Jacobson; Molly E Waring; Jeni L Matthews; Danielle M Wischenka; Betty Braxter; Sara L Kornfield Journal: J Behav Med Date: 2016-11-17
Authors: R James Stubbs; Liam Morris; Carolyn Pallister; Graham Horgan; Jacquie H Lavin Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Paul Aveyard; Amanda Lewis; Sarah Tearne; Kathryn Hood; Anna Christian-Brown; Peymane Adab; Rachna Begh; Kate Jolly; Amanda Daley; Amanda Farley; Deborah Lycett; Alecia Nickless; Ly-Mee Yu; Lise Retat; Laura Webber; Laura Pimpin; Susan A Jebb Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Monica L Wang; Molly E Waring; Danielle E Jake-Schoffman; Jessica L Oleski; Zachary Michaels; Jared M Goetz; Stephenie C Lemon; Yunsheng Ma; Sherry L Pagoto Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2017-12-11
Authors: Amy L Ahern; Paul N Aveyard; Jason Cg Halford; Adrian Mander; Lynne Cresswell; Simon R Cohn; Marc Suhrcke; Tim Marsh; Ann M Thomson; Susan A Jebb Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 3.295