Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29203505›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Obesity prevalence among healthcare professionals in England: a cross-sectional study using the Health Survey for England.

Richard G Kyle, Jane Wills, Catherine Mahoney, Louise Hoyle, Muireann Kelly, Iain M Atherton

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
22.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 168 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Effectiveness of Lifestyle Health Promotion Interventions for Nurses: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Prompting consumers to make healthier food choices in hospitals: a cluster randomised controlled trial.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2020
    Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Richard G KyleSchool of Health & Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6394-109X
Jane WillsSchool of Health & Social Care, London South Bank University, London, UK.
Catherine MahoneySchool of Health & Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK.
Louise HoyleSchool of Health & Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK.
Muireann KellySchool of Health & Social Care, London South Bank University, London, UK.
Iain M AthertonSchool of Health & Social Care, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK.
Edinburgh Napier University · GBLondon South Bank University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo estimate obesity prevalence among healthcare professionals in England and compare prevalence with those working outside of the health services.

designCross-sectional study based on data from 5 years (2008-2012) of the nationally representative Health Survey for England.

settingEngland.

participants20 103 adults aged 17-65 years indicating they were economically active at the time of survey classified into four occupational groups: nurses (n=422), other healthcare professionals (n=412), unregistered care workers (n=736) and individuals employed in non-health-related occupations (n=18 533). OUTCOME MEASURE: Prevalence of obesity defined as body mass index ≥30.0 with 95% CIs and weighted to reflect the population.

resultsObesity prevalence was high across all occupational groups including: among nurses (25.1%, 95% CI 20.9% to 29.4%); other healthcare professionals (14.4%, 95% CI 11.0% to 17.8%); non-health-related occupations (23.5%, 95% CI 22.9% to 24.1%); and unregistered care workers who had the highest prevalence of obesity (31.9%, 95% CI 28.4% to 35.3%). A logistic regression model adjusted for sociodemographic composition and survey year indicated that, compared with nurses, the odds of being obese were significantly lower for other healthcare professionals (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.52, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.75) and higher for unregistered care workers (aOR 1.46, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.93). There was no significant difference in obesity prevalence between nurses and people working in non-health-related occupations (aOR 0.94, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.18).

conclusionsHigh obesity prevalence among nurses and unregistered care workers is concerning as it increases the risks of musculoskeletal conditions and mental health conditions that are the main causes of sickness absence in health services. Further research is required to better understand the reasons for high obesity prevalence among healthcare professionals in England to inform interventions to support individuals to achieve and maintain a healthy weight.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelObesityAdultBody Mass IndexCross-Sectional StudiesEnglandFemaleHealth SurveysHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedPrevalenceSocioeconomic FactorsYoung Adulthealth survey for englandnursingobesity

Identifiers

PMID29203505
PMCPMC5719305
OpenAlexW2773380832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.