Martin Fischer1, Nadine Oberänder2, Arved Weimann2. 1. St. George Obesity Treatment Study Group. Klinikum St. Georg gGmbH, 04129, Leipzig, Germany. martin.fischer@sanktgeorg.de. 2. St. George Obesity Treatment Study Group. Klinikum St. Georg gGmbH, 04129, Leipzig, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Weight maintenance remains to be a challenge for patients in a reduced obese state and it has been recommended to provide them more individualized support. For this purpose it is crucial to understand the barriers patients are experiencing after weight loss. Many have been identified by qualitative studies. We evaluated if a quantitative assessment of patient perspective during weight maintenance can help identify major barriers that refer to actual regain. METHODS: Follow-up data were analyzed from patients attempting weight maintenances after successful completion of a nonsurgical weight loss and lifestyle intervention for morbid obesity. The data were acquired at mandatory follow-up assessments and included rating of 26 probable difficulties. A principal component analysis was carried out to explore whether these difficulties could be grouped into meaningful factors. Associations with socio-demographics, follow-up time, and weight changes were evaluated. RESULTS: Data from 88 out of 102 patients were available (baseline BMI 49.5 ± 7.4 kg/m2; 12-month weight loss 24.3 ± 9.6%; follow-up time 1.48 ± 0.6 years). Four solid factors, composed of 21 items and explaining 56% of the variance were extracted and interpreted as 'Hedonic Hunger', 'Mental Distress', 'Binge Eating', and 'Demoralization'. Weight regain (12.4 ± 12%) was correlated with each factor, most closely with 'Mental Distress' (r = 0.38). When controlling for age and follow-up time, 'Binge Eating' was the most important predictor (adj. R2 = 0.297). CONCLUSIONS: A quantitative assessment of patient perspective during the first years after weight loss can help identify valid barriers to weight loss maintenance.
BACKGROUND: Weight maintenance remains to be a challenge for patients in a reduced obese state and it has been recommended to provide them more individualized support. For this purpose it is crucial to understand the barriers patients are experiencing after weight loss. Many have been identified by qualitative studies. We evaluated if a quantitative assessment of patient perspective during weight maintenance can help identify major barriers that refer to actual regain. METHODS: Follow-up data were analyzed from patients attempting weight maintenances after successful completion of a nonsurgical weight loss and lifestyle intervention for morbid obesity. The data were acquired at mandatory follow-up assessments and included rating of 26 probable difficulties. A principal component analysis was carried out to explore whether these difficulties could be grouped into meaningful factors. Associations with socio-demographics, follow-up time, and weight changes were evaluated. RESULTS: Data from 88 out of 102 patients were available (baseline BMI 49.5 ± 7.4 kg/m2; 12-month weight loss 24.3 ± 9.6%; follow-up time 1.48 ± 0.6 years). Four solid factors, composed of 21 items and explaining 56% of the variance were extracted and interpreted as 'Hedonic Hunger', 'Mental Distress', 'Binge Eating', and 'Demoralization'. Weight regain (12.4 ± 12%) was correlated with each factor, most closely with 'Mental Distress' (r = 0.38). When controlling for age and follow-up time, 'Binge Eating' was the most important predictor (adj. R2 = 0.297). CONCLUSIONS: A quantitative assessment of patient perspective during the first years after weight loss can help identify valid barriers to weight loss maintenance.
Authors: Stephan C Bischoff; Yves Boirie; Tommy Cederholm; Michael Chourdakis; Cristina Cuerda; Nathalie M Delzenne; Nicolaas E Deutz; Denis Fouque; Laurence Genton; Carmen Gil; Berthold Koletzko; Miguel Leon-Sanz; Raanan Shamir; Joelle Singer; Pierre Singer; Nanette Stroebele-Benschop; Anders Thorell; Arved Weimann; Rocco Barazzoni Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2016-11-16 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Paul S MacLean; Rena R Wing; Terry Davidson; Leonard Epstein; Bret Goodpaster; Kevin D Hall; Barry E Levin; Michael G Perri; Barbara J Rolls; Michael Rosenbaum; Alexander J Rothman; Donna Ryan Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Erin Fothergill; Juen Guo; Lilian Howard; Jennifer C Kerns; Nicolas D Knuth; Robert Brychta; Kong Y Chen; Monica C Skarulis; Mary Walter; Peter J Walter; Kevin D Hall Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Pedro J Teixeira; Eliana V Carraça; Marta M Marques; Harry Rutter; Jean-Michel Oppert; Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij; Jeroen Lakerveld; Johannes Brug Journal: BMC Med Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Kirsten A Berk; Hanneke I M Buijks; Adrie J M Verhoeven; Monique T Mulder; Behiye Özcan; Adriaan van 't Spijker; Reinier Timman; Jan J Busschbach; Eric J Sijbrands Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2018-01-09 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Jonathan H Hori; Elizabeth X Sia; Kimberly G Lockwood; Lisa A Auster-Gussman; Sharon Rapoport; OraLee H Branch; Sarah A Graham Journal: Behav Sci (Basel) Date: 2022-05-24