SynthesisPloS one2019
Instruments for evaluation of motivations for weight loss in individuals with overweight and obesity: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Article
- Is there a difference in body size dissatisfaction between the patients with obesity seeking and not seeking treatment for obesity?BMC public health · 2021Article
- Obese endometrial cancer survivors' perceptions of weight loss strategies and characteristics that may influence participation in behavioral interventions.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review aims to identify instruments used to assess motivations for weight loss in individuals with overweight and obesity from different age groups, such as children, adolescents, adults, and older adults. The virtual search was carried out using the PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, and ADOLEC databases, and by manual search. The following descriptors were used: questionnaire, scale, instrument, evaluation, motivation, motive, reason, "lose weight," "losing weight," "weight loss," and slimming. Methodological quality was assessed according to the criteria of the COSMIN checklist. The search yielded 3,524 results, seven of which were included in the review. Six questionnaires assessing motivations for weight loss, which could be applied to various age groups, were identified. All the questionnaires presented items related to appearance and health as the main motivation for weight loss. In addition to these motivations, the questionnaires also included items related to improved sports performance, self-confidence, participation in important social events, family and social pressure, and fitting into different clothes. The most evaluated measurement properties in the studies were internal consistency, reliability, content validity, and construct validity. Regarding internal consistency, one was rated as excellent, one as fair, and three as poor. For reliability, two were rated as being of fair quality, and one as of poor quality. Two studies analyzed the content validity and the questionnaires were rated as being of poor methodological quality. Regarding structural validity, one was rated as excellent, another as fair, and another as poor quality. Only the Weight Loss Motivation Questionnaire presented excellent methodological quality for most of the analyzed criteria. There is a need to develop questionnaires that are of better methodological quality to assess motivations for weight loss. Instruments targeting the adolescent population should also be developed.
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.