| Literature DB >> 35501830 |
Sean Wharton1, David Macklin2, Marie-Philippe Morin3, Jessica Blavignac4, Stuart Menzies5, Laura Garofalo5, Michelle A Francisco6, Carol Thomas7, Maxime Barakat4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity is a chronic problem in Canada and although the Canadian Medical Association recognizes obesity as a disease, health care professionals (HCPs) are not necessarily proactively managing it as one. This study aimed to assess current obesity management knowledge and practices of Canadian family physicians (FPs) and evaluate the feasibility of an online self-directed learning platform, i-ACT™ in Obesity, in delivering learning and changing practice intentions to advance obesity management.Entities:
Keywords: Family medicine; Learning; Medical education; Obesity; Obesity management; Physicians
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35501830 PMCID: PMC9059350 DOI: 10.1186/s12875-022-01715-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Prim Care ISSN: 2731-4553
Linear steps involved in education delivery in i-ACT™ in Obesity
| Interaction | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Physician Profile | • Understand the learners’ practice patterns • Determine their knowledge levels and their perceived knowledge gaps to provide individualized curriculum recommendations |
| Educational Videos | • Update the learner’s knowledge based on the specific needs identified in the • Learners watched up to 11 didactic videos across disciplines on topics from the health consequences of obesity to exercise recommendations and nutritional advice (Supplementary file • The program algorithm assigned videos to a learner’s curriculum based on the relative difference between indicated desired and current knowledge on a variety of topics (Supplementary file |
| Patient Assessments | • Learners were asked to identify 10 patients in their practice with obesity (BMI ≥ 30 or ≥ 27 with an obesity-related comorbidity) to assess their actual practice patterns in comparison to their perception |
| Obesity Plan of Action | • Allow for self-reflection of individual practice (based on the 10 • Provide feedback on management practices was provided from the Obesity Medicine Education Collaborative (OMEC) competencies [ |
| Focus Group Meetings | • Small virtual group learning sessions were held between participants and Canadian obesity experts to allow for mentorship opportunities to support behaviour change |
Family physician characteristics
| Characteristic | Percentage of FPs ( |
|---|---|
| Regiona | |
| Ontario | 41% |
| Quebec | 16% |
| Eastern Canada | 9% |
| Western Canada | 33% |
| Practice type | |
| Solo | 39% |
| Group | 56% |
| Hospital | 2% |
| Academic | 2% |
| Other | 1% |
| Years in practice | |
| Less than 5 | 8% |
| 5–10 | 12% |
| 11–15 | 16% |
| 16–25 | 18% |
| 26–35 | 26% |
| More than 35 | 20% |
aEastern: FPs from Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia; Western: FPs from Alberta, British Columbia, and Manitoba.
Fig. 1Current versus desired levels of comfort in discussing obesity topics with patients as reported during the baseline needs assessment (N = 91)
Patient characteristics
| Characteristic | ( |
|---|---|
| Proportion female | 63% |
| Mean age (years) | 49.1 |
| Mean BMI (kg/m2) | 36.4 |
| Comorbidities (mean) | 1.8 per patient |
| Cardiovascular | 50% |
| Hypertension | 67% |
| Dyslipidemia | 88% |
| Major adverse cardiovascular events | 8% |
| Metabolic | 49% |
| Diabetes | 65% |
| Polycystic ovary syndrome [PCOS], | 14% |
| Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease [NAFLD] | 31% |
| Gout | 7% |
| Hypothyroidism | 20% |
| Mental health | 33% |
| Depression | 74% |
| Anxiety | 64% |
| Binge-eating disorder | 20% |
| Attention deficit–hyperactivity disorder [ADHD] | 9% |
| Other obesity-related comorbidities | 41% |
| Osteoarthritis [OA] | 63% |
| Obstructive sleep apnea [OSA] | 42% |
| Gastroesophageal reflux disease [GERD] | 43% |
| Urinary issues | 10% |
| None | 10% |
| Reason for appointment | |
| Obesity-related complication | 38% |
| Focus on weight | 33% |
| Acute condition | 19% |
| Other | 10% |
Fig. 2Changes in intervention use. A Responses to “What interventions have you ever used with your patient?” (first self-assessment, N = 91); B Responses to “What interventions are you considering today?” (second self-assessment, N = 900)
Fig. 3.FP satisfaction with the i-ACT™ in Obesity program. Response to “How would you rate the program overall?” (Rate from 1 to 10, where 1= Poor, 5 = Neutral, and 10 = Excellent; N=36).