ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2006
Conducting randomised controlled trials in primary care: lessons from an obesity management trial.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nurse delivered lifestyle interventions in primary health care to treat chronic disease risk factors associated with obesity: a systematic review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2012Pooled it
- Strategies for improving patient recruitment to focus groups in primary care: a case study reflective paper using an analytical framework.BMC medical research methodology · 2009Article
- The support of obese patients in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA UK trial ending in 2002 reported that a training intervention to improve the management of obesity in primary care had no impact. Process analysis showed that the intervention was taken up by very few of the practitioners in the participating practices.
aimThe aim of the current study was to explore both the reasons behind low levels of implementation and the context in which the trial was delivered.
designIn-depth qualitative interviews.
settingGeneral practices in the North East of England.
methodInterviews with 13 practitioners (GPs and practice nurses) and 10 patients, representing seven of the eight intervention practices in the largest centre of the original trial.
resultsWhile patients were clear that they had participated in a trial few of those interviewed had any recollection of the intervention. Most staff were positive about the training, resources to use with patients and the weight management model, but not all training needs were met. High initial expectations of the trial gave way to disillusionment, exacerbated by significant misunderstanding by some practice staff of their role in implementation.
conclusionsFrustration among practitioners managing obesity in primary care combined with unrealistic expectations of and misunderstanding about an intervention designed to improve care in the field, appeared to have resulted in disillusionment with and consequent disengagement from the trial.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16953999PMC1876633W2275729071What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.