Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34026468›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2021

Examining the feasibility and characteristics of realistic weight management support for patients: Focus groups with rural, micropolitan, and metropolitan primary care providers.

Gwenndolyn C Porter, Robert Schwab, Jennie L Hill, Todd Bartee, Kate A Heelan, Tzeyu L Michaud, Paul A Estabrooks

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Gwenndolyn C PorterDeaprtment of Health Promotion, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, United States.
Robert SchwabDeaprtment of Health Promotion, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, United States.
Jennie L HillDeaprtment of Health Promotion, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, United States.
Todd BarteeDepartment of Kinesiology and Sport Sciences, University of Nebraska at Kearney, United States.
Kate A HeelanDepartment of Kinesiology and Sport Sciences, University of Nebraska at Kearney, United States.
Tzeyu L MichaudDeaprtment of Health Promotion, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, United States.
Paul A EstabrooksDeaprtment of Health Promotion, College of Public Health, University of Nebraska Medical Center, United States.

Funding

NCCDPHP CDC HHS U18 DP006431NCCDPHP CDC HHS U18 DP006695
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this investigation was to understand perspectives of physicians, nurses, and staff regarding the feasibility of implementing an evidence-based weight management program to support primary care practice. An exploratory aim was to examine differences in responses based on the clinic location. Ten focus groups were conducted with primary care staff from rural, micropolitan, and metropolitan clinics. The Promoting Action on Research in Health Services (PARIHS) framework was used to inform the interview guide. Transcripts were reviewed to identify common themes among PARIHS constructs (evidence, context, and facilitation). Presence of comorbidities (e.g., diabetes, hypertension) were typical prompts for provider-led discussions about patient weight. Metropolitan clinics reported the availability of health coaching, diabetes education, or dietician consultation, but no clinic reported offering a comprehensive weight management program. Participants agreed it is possible to implement a weight management program through primary care, but cited potential facilitation challenges such as costs, clinic resources, and individual patient barriers. More enthusiasm arose for a referral program with patient tracking. Program characteristics such as proven efficacy, individual tailoring, program accessibility, and patient feedback to the providers were desired. Rural focus group participants reported unique barriers (lack of local resources) and facilitators (more flexibility in practice changes) to weight management when compared to metropolitan and micropolitan focus groups. Primary care staff are interested in weight management solutions for their patients and would prefer an evidence-based program to which they could refer patients, receive feedback on patient progress, and sustainably include as part of their regular services.

Indexed as

ImplementationPARIHSPrimary careWeight management

Identifiers

PMID34026468
PMCPMC8134728

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.