Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24886516›Full record

Trial reportThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity2014

Randomised controlled feasibility trial of a web-based weight management intervention with nurse support for obese patients in primary care.

Lucy Yardley, Lisa J Ware, Emily R Smith, Sarah Williams, Katherine J Bradbury, Emily J Arden-Close, Mark A Mullee, Michael V Moore, Janet L Peacock, Mike E J Lean and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
20.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 85 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

14 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Lucy YardleyCentre for Applications of Health Psychology (CAHP), Faculty of Social and Human Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK. L.Yardley@soton.ac.uk.
Lisa J Ware
Emily R Smith
Sarah Williams
Katherine J Bradbury
Emily J Arden-Close
Mark A Mullee
Michael V Moore
Janet L Peacock
Mike E J Lean
Barrie M Margetts
Chris D Byrne
Richard F D Hobbs
Paul Little
University of Southampton · GBBournemouth University · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBNational Institute for Health Research · GBNorth-West University · ZAOxford BioMedica (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity of Glasgow · GB

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0808-17077
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is a need for cost-effective weight management interventions that primary care can deliver to reduce the morbidity caused by obesity. Automated web-based interventions might provide a solution, but evidence suggests that they may be ineffective without additional human support. The main aim of this study was to carry out a feasibility trial of a web-based weight management intervention in primary care, comparing different levels of nurse support, to determine the optimal combination of web-based and personal support to be tested in a full trial.

methodsThis was an individually randomised four arm parallel non-blinded trial, recruiting obese patients in primary care. Following online registration, patients were randomly allocated by the automated intervention to either usual care, the web-based intervention only, or the web-based intervention with either basic nurse support (3 sessions in 3 months) or regular nurse support (7 sessions in 6 months). The main outcome measure (intended as the primary outcome for the main trial) was weight loss in kg at 12 months. As this was a feasibility trial no statistical analyses were carried out, but we present means, confidence intervals and effect sizes for weight loss in each group, uptake and retention, and completion of intervention components and outcome measures.

resultsAll randomised patients were included in the weight loss analyses (using Last Observation Carried Forward). At 12 months mean weight loss was: usual care group (n = 43) 2.44 kg; web-based only group (n = 45) 2.30 kg; basic nurse support group (n = 44) 4.31 kg; regular nurse support group (n = 47) 2.50 kg. Intervention effect sizes compared with usual care were: d = 0.01 web-based; d = 0.34 basic nurse support; d = 0.02 regular nurse support. Two practices deviated from protocol by providing considerable weight management support to their usual care patients.

conclusionsThis study demonstrated the feasibility of delivering a web-based weight management intervention supported by practice nurses in primary care, and suggests that the combination of the web-based intervention with basic nurse support could provide an effective solution to weight management support in a primary care context.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN31685626.

Indexed as

InternetPrimary Health CareWeight Reduction ProgramsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCost-Benefit AnalysisFeasibility StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNursesObesityTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID24886516
PMCPMC4045942
OpenAlexW2163775557

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.