Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33026192›Full record

Trial reportClinical obesity2021

Gender differences in response to an opportunistic brief intervention for obesity in primary care: Data from the BWeL trial.

Kate Tudor, Sarah Tearne, Susan A Jebb, Amanda Lewis, Peymane Adab, Rachna Begh, Kate Jolly, Amanda Daley, Amanda Farley, Deborah Lycett and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical obesity, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. 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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Kate TudorNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sarah TearneInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Susan A JebbNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Amanda LewisPopulation Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Peymane AdabInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9087-3945
Rachna BeghNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Kate JollyInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Amanda DaleySchool of Sport, Exercise, and Health Sciences, Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4866-8726
Amanda FarleyInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Deborah LycettFaculty Research Centre for Advances in Behavioural Science, Coventry University, Coventry, UK.
Alecia NicklessSchool of Chemistry, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Paul AveyardNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1802-4217
University of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBCoventry University · GBLoughborough University · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/J000515/1NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research CentreNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and CLAHRC Oxford
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Weight loss programmes appeal mainly to women, prompting calls for gender-specific programmes. In the United Kingdom, general practitioners (GPs) refer nine times as many women as men to community weight loss programmes. GPs endorsement and offering programmes systematically could reduce this imbalance. In this trial, consecutively attending patients in primary care with obesity were invited and 1882 were enrolled and randomized to one of two opportunistic 30-second interventions to support weight loss given by GPs in consultations unrelated to weight. In the support arm, clinicians endorsed and offered referral to a weight loss programme and, in the advice arm, advised that weight loss would improve health. Generalized linear mixed effects models examined whether gender moderated the intervention. Men took effective weight loss action less often in both arms (support: 41.6% vs 60.7%; advice: 12.1% vs 18.3%; odds ratio (OR) = 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.27, 0.52, P < .001) but there was no evidence that the relative effect differed by gender (interaction P = .32). In the support arm, men accepted referral and attended referral less often, 69.3% vs 82.4%; OR = 0.48, 95% CI, 0.35, 0.66, P < .001 and 30.4% vs 47.6%; OR = 0.48, 95% CI, 0.36, 0.63, P < .001, respectively. Nevertheless, the gender balance in attending weight loss programmes closed to 1.6:1. Men and women attended the same number of sessions (9.7 vs 9.1 sessions, P = .16) and there was no evidence weight loss differed by gender (6.05 kg men vs 4.37 kg women, P = .39). Clinician-delivered opportunistic 30-second interventions benefits men and women equally and reduce most of the gender imbalance in attending weight loss programmes.

Indexed as

Crisis InterventionObesityWeight Reduction ProgramsFemaleHumansMalePrimary Health CareSex Factorsbrief opportunistic interventiongenderprimary carerandomized controlled trialweight loss

Identifiers

PMID33026192
PMCPMC11475413
OpenAlexW3089375164

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.