ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners1998
GP documentation of obesity: what does it achieve?
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Profiling disordered eating patterns and body mass index (BMI) in the English general population.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2013Article
- Trends in the prevalence and management of diagnosed type 2 diabetes 1994-2001 in England and Wales.BMC family practice · 2005Article
- Abdominal obesity and the "hypertriglyceridaemic waist" phenotype.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2001Article
- Managing obesity in primary care: do our patients deserve better?The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1999Article
- Changing times for disinfection and sterilization procedures in general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 1999Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundObesity is a major and increasing health problem in the United Kingdom, and, until recently, the government health promotion package for general practice reimbursed general practitioners for documenting obesity. Despite poor evidence for effectiveness of interventions in primary care, documentation of obesity could possibly improve patient awareness and knowledge, or provide public health information.
aimTo assess patient perception of obesity and its health risk, and the accuracy of estimating obesity using patient information.
methodSubjects were consecutive attenders to a general practitioner (GP) at a single urban practice in the South and West Region. Outcome measures were 'measured' body mass index (BMI) calculated from measured weight and height, 'estimated' BMI using patient information, and patient perception of obesity and the health risks of obesity.
resultsThere is good correlation between 'estimated' and 'measured' BMI (intraclass correlation 0.91). Estimated BMI is lower than measured BMI (mean 0.77 lower), and the difference increases with age and level of BMI: for BMIs of < 20, 20-24.99, 25-29.99, and > or = 30 the mean differences (estimated-measured) were -0.06, -0.46, -0.98 and -1.72 respectively. Estimated obesity (BMI > 30) is reasonably sensitive (70%), specific (99%), and predictive (93% positive predictive value) of measured obesity (kappa 0.78). All obese subjects are aware that they are overweight, and most of them (78%, 95% confidence interval 66-88%) are aware that their weight is a health risk.
conclusionObese patients attending GPs' surgeries are likely to know if they are overweight, or could easily estimate from their knowledge of height and weight that they were overweight with reasonable accuracy. Obese subjects also know that their weight carries health risks. Thus, measurement of obesity in the general population is not likely to improve risk assessment or patient knowledge significantly. Without evidence for effective intervention or improved decision-making in primary care, reimbursement guidelines linked to the documentation of obesity in the population are probably an inefficient use of resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
9604411PMC1409915What 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.