Trial reportBMJ open2015
Can certified health professionals treat obesity in a community-based programme? A quasi-experimental study.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
- Physical activity promotion in rural health care settings: A rapid realist review.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Review
- Evaluation of a multiprofessional, nonsurgical obesity treatment program: which parameters indicated life style changes and weight loss?Journal of eating disorders · 2017Article
- Improving Obesity Prevention and Management in Primary Care in Canada.Current obesity reports · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo test the effectiveness of a non-pharmaceutical programme for obese participants in a rural Eastern Canadian Province using certified health professionals.
designA prospective quasi-experimental design with repeated premeasure and postmeasure.
participants146 participants with obesity (body mass index >30 kg/m(2)) from rural and urban communities in an Eastern Canadian Province were divided into four groups.
interventionA 6-month intensive active community-based lifestyle intervention (InI) delivered by Certified Exercise Physiologists, Certified Personal Trainers and Registered Dietitians, followed by 6 months of self-management. A second intervention (InII) was nested in InI and consisted of group-mediated cognitive-behavioral intervention (GMCBI) delivered by an exercise psychologist to two of the four InI groups. OUTCOMES: (1) Improving health outcomes among the participants' preactive and postactive 6-month intervention and self-management period, (2) Documenting the impact of InII (GMCBI) and location of the intervention (urban vs rural).
resultsThe 6-month active InI significantly improved cardiovascular health for participants who completed the intervention. InII (GMCBI) significantly lowered the attrition rate among the participants. The self-management period was challenging for the participants and they did not make further gains; however, most were able to maintain the gains achieved during the active intervention. The location of the intervention, urban or rural, had little impact on outcomes.
conclusionsA community-based programme utilising healthcare professionals other than physicians to treat obese patients was effective based on premeasure and postmeasure. During the self-management phase, the participants were able to maintain the gains. Psychological support is essential to participant retention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.