ArticleBMJ open2023
Are there inequalities in the attendance and effectiveness of behavioural weight management interventions for adults in the UK? Protocol for an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionIt is important to identify whether behavioural weight management interventions work well across different groups in the population so health inequalities in obesity are not widened. Previous systematic reviews of inequalities in the attendance and effectiveness of behavioural weight management interventions have been limited because few trials report relevant analyses and heterogeneity in the categorisation of inequality characteristics prevents meta-analysis. An individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) allows us to reanalyse all trials with available data in a uniform way. We aim to conduct an IPD meta-analysis of UK randomised controlled trials to examine whether there are inequalities in the attendance and effectiveness of behavioural weight interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In a recently published systematic review, we identified 17 UK-based randomised controlled trials of primary care-relevant behavioural interventions, conducted in adults living with overweight or obesity and reporting weight outcomes at baseline and 1-year follow-up. The corresponding author of each trial will be invited to contribute data to the IPD-MA. The outcomes of interest are weight at 12-months and intervention attendance (number of sessions offered vs number of sessions attended). We will primarily consider whether there is an interaction between intervention group and characteristics where inequalities occur, such as by gender/sex, socioeconomic status or age. The IPD-MA will be conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of IPD guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No further ethical approval was required as ethical approval for each individual study was obtained by the original trial investigators from appropriate ethics committees. The completed IPD-MA will be disseminated at conferences, in a peer-reviewed journal and contribute to the lead author's PhD thesis. Investigators of each individual study included in the final IPD-MA will be invited to collaborate on any publications that arise from the project.
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.