Observational studyThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2016
Inequalities in the uptake of weight management interventions in a pragmatic trial: an observational study in primary care.
Observational study in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review examining socioeconomic factors in trials of interventions for men that report weight as an outcome.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2022Pooled it
- A systematic review of inequalities in the uptake of, adherence to, and effectiveness of behavioral weight management interventions in adults.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2022Pooled it
- Randomised controlled trial of breast cancer and multiple disease prevention weight loss programmes vs written advice amongst women attending a breast cancer family history clinic.British journal of cancer · 2023Trial
- Association between Indicators of Inequality and Weight Change following a Behavioural Weight Loss Intervention.Obesity facts · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Effects of a group-based weight management programme on anxiety and depression: A randomised controlled trial (RCT).PloS one · 2022Trial
- Testing the short-term effectiveness of primary care referral to online weight loss programmes: A randomised controlled trial.Clinical obesity · 2021Trial
- Gender differences in response to an opportunistic brief intervention for obesity in primary care: Data from the BWeL trial.Clinical obesity · 2021Trial
- Recruiting men from across the socioeconomic spectrum via GP registers and community outreach to a weight management feasibility randomised controlled trial.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Trial
- The equity impact of brief opportunistic interventions to promote weight loss in primary care: secondary analysis of the BWeL randomised trial.BMC medicine · 2019Trial
- Clinical and metabolic features of the randomised controlled Diabetes Remission Clinical Trial (DiRECT) cohort.Diabetologia · 2018Trial
- Extended and standard duration weight-loss programme referrals for adults in primary care (WRAP): a randomised controlled trial.Lancet (London, England) · 2017Trial
- Effect of parent attendance at an adult commercial weight management programme on their children.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Article
- Mapping the Behavioral Weight Management Ecosystem in the East of England to Inform the Implementation of Electronic Signposting.Obesity science & practice · 2026Article
- Applications of episodic future thinking in patients with chronic diseases: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Implementation of an Australian football themed men's health program in rural Australia: a mixed-methods study.Health promotion international · 2025Article
- Implementing a Virtual, Collaborative Care Weight Management Program in Rural Primary Care: Pilot Results and Insights.Telemedicine reports · 2025Article
- Are there inequalities in the attendance at and effectiveness of behavioural weight management interventions for adults in the UK? An individual participant data meta-analysis.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- Pragmatic online obesity treatment in primary care: a hybrid randomized clinical trial of implementation strategies.NPJ cardiovascular health · 2024Article
- Characteristics and Weight Loss Practices From a Cohort of 20,000 Patients Using Direct-to-Consumer Telehealth: Observational Cross-sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrimary care referral to a commercial open-group behavioural weight-loss programme is a cost-effective intervention, but only 10% of patients receiving this intervention are male.
aimTo explore whether observed biases in participation in these interventions reflect biases in the uptake of the invitation to participate. DESIGN AND
settingComparison of invited population and recruited participants in a multicentre randomised controlled trial of primary care referral to a commercial open-group behavioural weight-loss programme in England (WRAP [Weight loss Referrals for Adults in Primary care]).
methodBetween October 2012 and February 2014, participants were recruited through 23 primary care practices in England; 17 practices provided data on the characteristics of invited participants.
resultsFemales were twice as likely as males to enrol in the trial (odds ratio [OR] 2.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.75 to 2.32). However, the proportion of males was threefold higher than seen in routine primary care referrals or similar trials that invited patients opportunistically. People from less deprived areas were more likely to enrol than those in more deprived areas (OR 1.77, 95% CI = 1.55 to 2.03). Older patients (≥40 years) were more likely to enrol than younger patients (OR 1.60, 95% CI = 1.34 to 1.91).
conclusionMales, younger people, and those from more deprived areas were less likely to take up the invitation to participate in this trial. The gender bias was smaller than observed in routine practice, suggesting that a substantial proportion of the inequity observed previously is a consequence of bias with regard to the offer of intervention. This study suggests that a simple way to overcome much of the gender bias is to write to patients who are overweight and offer referral. Uptake of the invitation to participate was lower in groups of lower socioeconomic status suggesting the need to preferentially offer referrals to this group to reduce health inequalities and for research to explore barriers to uptake.
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.