Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28545538›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2017

Providing online weight management in Primary Care: a mixed methods process evaluation of healthcare practitioners' experiences of using and supporting patients using POWeR.

Emily Smith, Katherine Bradbury, Lisa Scott, Mary Steele, Paul Little, Lucy Yardley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Emily SmithUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
Katherine BradburyHealth Psychology, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK. kjb1e08@soton.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5513-7571
Lisa ScottHealth Psychology, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.
Mary SteeleHealth Psychology, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.
Paul LittlePrimary Medical Care, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Lucy YardleyHealth Psychology, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK.

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-1211-20001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn online weight management intervention (POWeR+) combined with a small amount of primary care healthcare practitioner support is effective in helping patients to lose weight, but little is known about how practitioners interact with the POWeR+ intervention or their experiences of providing support for patients using POWeR+. The aim of this study was to explore practitioners' usage of POWeR+ and their experiences of providing support to patients using POWeR+.

methodsSet within a randomised controlled trial of POWeR+, practitioners' usage of POWeR+ was automatically captured and a qualitative process analysis was conducted employing semi-structured telephone interviews with practitioners who provided support to patients using POWeR+. The usage analysis captured how 54 practitioners used the POWeR+ intervention. Thirteen telephone interviews explored practitioners' experiences of using POWeR+ and providing patients with face-to-face or remote (email and telephone) support. Interview data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

resultsUsage analysis indicated that almost all practitioners engaged with POWeR+. Pages which displayed patients' progress and allowed practitioners to email patients were used the most. Practitioners found POWeR+ straightforward and easy to use. Some practitioners preferred providing support face-to-face, which they enjoyed more than remote support. A small number of nurses found providing non-directive support using the CARe approach (Congratulate, Ask, Remind) challenging, feeling it was the opposite of their normal approach. POWeR+ enabled practitioners to raise the topic of weight loss with patients, and POWeR+ was viewed as a superior alternative to existing weight management support which was limited in most practices. Still some practitioners found it difficult to fit providing support into their busy schedules.

conclusionsOverall, practitioners engaged well with POWeR+ and perceived providing patients with support whilst using POWeR+ as acceptable and feasible. CARe provides a potentially useful model for how practitioners can combine human and digital support in a cost-effective way, which could be useful for the management of other conditions. Some potential barriers to implementation were identified, which allowed modification of POWeR+. The findings suggest that implementing this cost-effective online weight management intervention in Primary Care would be feasible and acceptable to practitioners.

trial registrationClinicalTrial.gov, ISRCTN21244703.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelBody Weight MaintenanceInternetTelephoneAdultFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMiddle AgedPrimary Health CareTelemedicineDigital interventionE-healthHealthcare practitionersMixed methodsObesityProcess analysisWeight loss

Identifiers

PMID28545538
PMCPMC5445406

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.