Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26906629›Full record

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.

Amy L Ahern, Paul Aveyard, Emma J Boyland, Jason Cg Halford, Susan A Jebb, WRAP trial team

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. 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 · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Amy L AhernMRC Human Nutrition Research, Cambridge.
Paul AveyardNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Emma J BoylandDepartment of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool.
Jason Cg HalfordDepartment of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool.
Susan A Jebb
WRAP trial team
MRC Human Nutrition Research · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_EX_MR/J000493/1Medical Research Council MC_U105960384Medical Research Council MC_U105960389Medical Research Council MR/J000493/1
6 · The paper itself

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

ObesityPatient CompliancePrimary Health CareReferral and ConsultationWeight Reduction ProgramsAdultAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleHumansMalePragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicQualitative ResearchQuality of LifeRisk Reduction BehaviorSocioeconomic Factorshealthcare disparitiesobesityprimary careweight loss

Identifiers

PMID26906629
PMCPMC4809709
OpenAlexW2289302815

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.