Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29171112›Full record

ArticleJournal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association2018

The impact of social deprivation on the response to a randomised controlled trial of a weight management intervention (BeWEL) for people at increased risk of colorectal cancer.

A Fisher, A M Craigie, M Macleod, R J C Steele, A S Anderson

Open access · hybridAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 40% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

A FisherDivision of Cancer Research, Centre for Research into Cancer Prevention and Screening, Ninewells Hospital & Medical School, Dundee, UK.
A M CraigieDivision of Cancer Research, Centre for Research into Cancer Prevention and Screening, Ninewells Hospital & Medical School, Dundee, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2047-1606
M MacleodDivision of Cancer Research, Centre for Research into Cancer Prevention and Screening, Ninewells Hospital & Medical School, Dundee, UK.
R J C SteeleDivision of Cancer Research, Centre for Research into Cancer Prevention and Screening, Ninewells Hospital & Medical School, Dundee, UK.
A S AndersonDivision of Cancer Research, Centre for Research into Cancer Prevention and Screening, Ninewells Hospital & Medical School, Dundee, UK.
Ninewells Hospital · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilCancer Research UKChief Scientist OfficeDepartment of HealthMedical Research Council G0802030
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough 45% of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases may be avoidable through appropriate lifestyle and weight management, health promotion interventions run the risk of widening health inequalities. The BeWEL randomised controlled trial assessed the impact of a diet and activity programme in overweight adults who were diagnosed with a colorectal adenoma, demonstrating a significantly greater weight loss at 12 months in intervention participants than in controls. The present study aimed to compare BeWEL intervention outcomes by participant deprivation status.

methodsThe intervention group of the BeWEL trial (n = 163) was classified by the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) quintiles into 'more deprived' (SIMD 1-2, n = 58) and 'less deprived' (SIMD 3-5, n = 105). Socio-economic and lifestyle variables were compared at baseline to identify potential challenges to intervention adherence in the more deprived. Between group differences at 12 months in primary outcome (change in body weight) and secondary outcomes (cardiovascular risk factors, diet, physical activity, knowledge of CRC risk and psychosocial variables) were assessed by deprivation status.

resultsAt baseline, education (P = 0.001), income (P < 0.001), spending on physical activity (P = 0.003) and success at previous weight loss attempts (P = 0.007) were significantly lower in the most deprived. At 12 months, no between group differences by deprivation status were detected for changes in primary and main secondary outcomes.

conclusionsDespite potential barriers faced by the more deprived participants, primary and most secondary outcomes were comparable between groups, indicating that this intervention is unlikely to worsen health inequalities and is equally effective across socio-economic groups.

Indexed as

Health Status DisparitiesPsychosocial DeprivationAdenomaAgedColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansLife StyleMaleMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch SubjectsScotlandSocioeconomic FactorsTreatment OutcomeWeight Reduction Programscolorectal cancerdeprivationinterventionlifestylescreening

Identifiers

PMID29171112
PMCPMC6001549
OpenAlexW2768489990

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.