Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23690325›Full record

ArticleAnnals of family medicine

Participants' explanatory model of being overweight and their experiences of 2 weight loss interventions.

Amy L Ahern, Emma J Boyland, Susan A Jebb, Simon R Cohn

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The importance of service-users' perspectives: A systematic review of qualitative evidence reveals overlooked critical features of weight management programmes.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Is self-weighing an effective tool for weight loss: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2015
    Pooled it
  4. Behavioural weight management programmes for adults assessed by trials conducted in everyday contexts: systematic review and meta-analysis.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2014
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Mechanisms of Action in a Behavioral Weight-Management Program: Latent Growth Curve Analysis.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2022
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Experiences of a commercial weight-loss programme after primary care referral: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015
    Trial
  11. Article
  12. An Assessment of Weight Loss Management in Health System Primary Care Practices.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Inequalities in the uptake of weight management interventions in a pragmatic trial: an observational study in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016
    Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amy L AhernMRC Human Nutrition Research, Elsie Widdowson Laboratory, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Amy.Ahern@mrc-hnr.cam.ac.uk
Emma J Boyland
Susan A Jebb
Simon R Cohn
MRC Human Nutrition Research · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U105960389Medical Research Council U105960389
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe explored participants' accounts of weight loss interventions to illuminate the reasons behind the greater weight loss observed among those attending a commercial program compared with those receiving standard care in a recent large-scale trial. We further wanted to examine how participants' general explanatory model of being overweight related to the 2 different interventions.

methodsOur study was based on thematic analysis of semistructured telephone interviews with a purposeful sample of 16 female participants from the UK center of a randomized controlled trial of weight loss in primary care.

resultsThe commercial provider delivered weight management in a nonmedical context, which mirrors how participants regard being overweight. Participants felt they needed support and motivation rather than education, and valued the ease of access and frequent contact the commercial provider offered. Some participants preferred individual level support with their primary care clinician, and all were positive about the opportunity to access support through the primary care setting.

conclusionsPrimary care referral to a commercial weight loss program for people who do not require specific clinical care appears to be in accord with their general explanatory model about being overweight, offering motivation and support to lose weight outside a strictly medical context. This approach may not be effective or acceptable for everyone, however, and there are likely to be considerable variations in the explanatory models held. Findings support the argument that a range of evidence-based options for weight management should be available in primary care.

Indexed as

Social MediaAdultBody Mass IndexDiet, ReducingFemaleHumansMiddle AgedObesityPatient ParticipationPatient SatisfactionUnited KingdomWeight Reduction Programsobesityoverweightprimary health carepublic-private sector partnershipsqualitative researchweight loss programs

Identifiers

PMID23690325
PMCPMC3659142
OpenAlexW2151564875

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.