ArticleObesity (Silver Spring, Md.)2018
Effects of Education and Experience on Primary Care Providers' Perspectives of Obesity Treatments during a Pragmatic Trial.
Article in Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Screening, Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Staging of Obesity in Adults: Standards of Care in Overweight and Obesity-2026.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2026Review
- Pharmacologic treatment of obesity in adults: Standards of care in overweight and obesity.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2026Review
- Factors Associated With Semaglutide Initiation Among Adults With Obesity.JAMA network open · 2025 · on this mapObservational
- The Joys and Challenges of Delivering Obesity Care: a Qualitative Study of US Primary Care Practices.Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Article
- Geographic Availability of Physicians Certified by the American Board of Obesity Medicine Relative to Obesity Prevalence.Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) · 2019Article
- Antiobesity Medication Use in 2.2 Million Adults Across Eight Large Health Care Organizations: 2009-2015.Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) · 2019Article
- Pharmacologic Treatment of Obesity in Adults: Standards of Care in Overweight and Obesity.Diabetes, obesity, and cardiometabolic CAREReview
- Screening, Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Staging of Obesity in Adults: Standards of Care in Overweight and Obesity-2026.Diabetes, obesity, and cardiometabolic CAREReview
- Obesity Management Education Needs Among General Internists: A Survey.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
- We Should Do More to Offer Evidence-Based Treatment for an Important Modifiable Risk Factor for COVID-19: Obesity.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the impact of a 1-year pragmatic obesity trial on primary care providers' (PCPs) perspectives of treatment.
methodsPCPs from four intervention clinics (PCP-I) and five control clinics (PCP-C) completed pre- and postintervention surveys on weight-loss counseling, comfort discussing obesity treatments, and perceived effectiveness of interventions; questions were rated on 0 to 10 Likert scales. Only PCP-I received patient updates and education about obesity management.
resultsEighty PCPs completed preintervention surveys (pre: 71% female, 71% physicians); 82 PCPs completed postintervention surveys (post: 66% female, 70% physicians). PCPs were most comfortable discussing exercise before and after the trial (pre PCP-C: 8.22 [1.44], mean [standard deviation (SD)]; post PCP-C: 8.37 [1.24]; P = 0.8; pre/post PCP-I: 7.88 [1.51] vs. 7.80 [1.71]; P = 0.3). PCPs were initially least comfortable discussing phentermine/topiramate extended release (ER) but developed significantly more comfort after the trial, to a greater degree among PCP-I (pre/post PCP-C: 2.86 [2.66] vs. 3.73 [2.72], P < 0.001; pre/post PCP-I: 4.00 [2.57] vs. 6.17 [2.27], P < 0.001). After the trial, both PCPs rated exercise significantly less effective for weight loss, with a greater decrease in effectiveness rations among PCP-I (pre/post PCP-C: 7.73 [1.94] vs. 6.93 [2.35], P = 0.017; pre/post PCP-I: 6.27 [2.69] vs. 5.15 [2.31], P = 0.001). Both PCPs rated phentermine (pre/post PCP-C: 5.03 [2.05] vs. 5.50 [2.12], P = 0.002; pre/post PCP-I: 5.70 [1.64] vs. 6.83 [1.18], P = 0.001) and phentermine/topiramate ER (pre/post PCP-C: 3.91 [2.33] vs. 5.47 [2.54], P < 0.001; pre/post PCP-I: 5.58 [2.21] vs. 7.02 [1.47], P < 0.001) significantly more effective after the trial, though ratings were higher among PCP-I.
conclusionsPCPs initially overvalued exercise and undervalued weight-loss medications. PCPs exposed to education and experience gave higher comfort and effectiveness ratings to weight-loss medications.
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.