Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41876166›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2026

Logic model development through a feasibility RCT for a group-based weight management programme.

Rod Sheaff, Shokraneh Moghadam, Laura Hollands, Lily Hawkins, Dawn Swancutt, Jenny Lloyd, Jonathan Pinkney, Mark Tarrant

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Rod SheaffPeninsula Medical School, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK r.sheaff@plymouth.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7984-2627
Shokraneh MoghadamUniversity of Bristol, Bristol, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7868-9598
Laura HollandsSchool of Psychology, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6451-6255
Lily HawkinsOccupational Health and Wellbeing Service, West Glasgow ACH, Glasgow, UK.
Dawn SwancuttFaculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1477-9935
Jenny LloydDepartment of Health and Community Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3211-5972
Jonathan PinkneyPeninsula Medical School, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK.
Mark TarrantSchool of Psychology, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7194-1428

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesClinical psychology interventions for reducing obesity have developed alongside pharmacological and surgical treatments, but usually as interventions for individual patients. Any healthcare intervention rests on a logic model: assumptions that through specific physical and social mechanisms, it will produce certain intended outcomes, provided that conducive background conditions ('contexts') exist. Using evidence from the feasibility trial preceding a full randomised controlled trial (RCT), this paper assesses the empirical validity of the initial logic model of a new group-based weight management intervention: PROGROUP, designed for patients with body mass index (BMI) ≥40 kg/m

designMultimethod proof-of-concept study by means of realist evaluation of the initial PROGROUP logic model. We:Elicited the logic model underlying the intervention design.Compared these assumptions with data from a pre-RCT feasibility study in two English and one Welsh National Health Service (NHS) sites during 2021-2023.Revised the logic model in light of the data, noting how much variation in delivery the programme components (therapeutic mechanisms) could tolerate.

settingSpecialised ambulatory mental health services in the English NHS.

participantsAdults with severe obesity (BMI ≥40 kg/m

interventionGroup-building techniques to enhance group members' adoption of evidence-based methods of behaviour change affecting their dietary behaviour and physical activity. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Qualitative outcomes. What kinds of:Mechanisms were established and triggered by the attempt to implement PROGROUP (secondary outcome, see objective 1 above).Patient behaviours resulted and whether patients sustained them after the intervention ended (primary outcome; see objective 1 above); and what kinds of context affected that (objectives 2 and 3).Quantitative measures not used.

resultsThe initial logic model assumed that the following sequence of mechanisms would produce weight loss: referral from GP to specialist weight management services; further referral to PROGROUP; preparatory individual consultation; facilitated group sessions produce a group identity; group identity reinforces weight management capability and motivation; further individual consultations adjust for individual circumstances; behaviour change outside the treatment setting, producing weight loss. Contexts necessary for these mechanisms to work included: sufficient catchment population; group size, continuity and membership retention; suitable location; facilitator training; and practical support outside the treatment setting.

conclusionsThe findings suggested revisions to the logic model, but more in the delivery components and contextual assumptions than the core therapeutic mechanisms. There was scope to simplify the referral mechanisms. Different professions could implement the model. A realist evaluation of a pre-RCT feasibility study can be used to make the intervention's logic model more securely evidence-based, serving as a proof-of-concept test for the intervention. It indicated the conditions under which such group psychological interventions might be more widely used. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN22088800.

Indexed as

ObesityWeight Reduction ProgramsAdultBody Mass IndexFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBehaviorObesityOrganisation of health servicesPsychosocial InterventionWeight Gain

Identifiers

PMID41876166
PMCPMC13034288

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.