ArticleBMC medicine2019
Determinants and extent of weight recording in UK primary care: an analysis of 5 million adults' electronic health records from 2000 to 2017.
Article in BMC medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantifying Weight Loss Prior to Pancreatic Cancer Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancer medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Preconception indicators and associations with health outcomes reported in UK routine primary care data: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Pooled it
- Enablers and barriers to implementing obesity assessments in clinical practice: a rapid mixed-methods systematic review.BMJ open · 2022Pooled it
- Baseline Characteristics of PATHWEIGH: A Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Study for Weight Management in Primary Care.Annals of family medicineTrial
- Blood test trend versus single threshold abnormality to discriminate cancer from non-cancer in patients with unexpected weight loss: A retrospective cohort study.PLoS medicine · 2026Article
- Value of measuring waist circumference in primary care: a mixed-methods study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026Article
- Leveraging primary care data to understand military veteran health in England: feasibility study and matched-control comparison of recorded conditions.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Beyond Single Anthropometric Measures: Integrating Waist Circumference and Body Mass Index to Stratify Obesity-Related Health Risk.Current obesity reports · 2026Review
- Real-world obesity prevalence and history in 79 271 patients receiving systemic anticancer therapy across 13 cancer types in England (2013-2023).ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Article
- Article
- Same ICD-10 code, different estimands: four Polish National Health Fund obesity series, 2015-2025.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Epidemiology Landscape and Impact of Overweight and Obesity in Adults: Multi-country Results from the IMPACT-O Study.Advances in therapy · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Recording practices of body mass index, overweight and obesity by Dutch general practitioners: an observational study.BMC primary care · 2025Observational
- A scoping review of unexpected weight loss and cancer: risk, guidelines, and recommendations for follow-up in primary care.BJGP open · 2024Article
- Overall mortality for community-dwelling adults over 50 years at risk of malnutrition.Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle · 2024Article
- Prioritising primary care patients with unexpected weight loss for cancer investigation: diagnostic accuracy study (update).BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2024Article
- Trends in all-cause and cause-specific mortality by BMI levels in England, 2004-2019: a population-based primary care records study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExcess weight and unexpected weight loss are associated with multiple disease states and increased morbidity and mortality, but weight measurement is not routine in many primary care settings. The aim of this study was to characterise who has had their weight recorded in UK primary care, how frequently, by whom and in relation to which clinical events, symptoms and diagnoses.
methodsA longitudinal analysis of UK primary care electronic health records (EHR) data from 2000 to 2017. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise weight recording in terms of patient sociodemographic characteristics, health professional encounters, clinical events, symptoms and diagnoses. Negative binomial regression was used to model the likelihood of having a weight record each year, and Cox regression to the likelihood of repeated weight recording.
resultsA total of 14,049,871 weight records were identified in the EHR of 4,918,746 patients during the study period, representing 26,998,591 person-years of observation. Around a third of patients had a weight record each year. Forty-nine percent of weight records were repeated within a year with an average time to a repeat weight record of 1.92 years. Weight records were most often taken by nursing staff (38-42%) and GPs (37-39%) as part of a routine clinical care, such as chronic disease reviews (16%), medication reviews (6-8%) and health checks (6-7%), or were associated with consultations for contraception (5-8%), respiratory disease (5%) and obesity (1%). Patient characteristics independently associated with an increased likelihood of weight recording were as follows: female sex, younger and older adults, non-drinkers, ex-smokers, low or high BMI, being more deprived, diagnosed with a greater number of comorbidities and consulting more frequently. The effect of policy-level incentives to record weight did not appear to be sustained after they were removed.
conclusionWeight recording is not a routine activity in UK primary care. It is recorded for around a third of patients each year and is repeated on average every 2 years for these patients. It is more common in females with higher BMI and in those with comorbidity. Incentive payments and their removal appear to be associated with increases and decreases in weight recording.
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.