Nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy to improve insomnia disorder in primary care: the HABIT RCT.

Background: Insomnia is a prevalent and distressing sleep disorder. Multicomponent cognitive-behavioural therapy is the recommended first-line treatment, but access remains extremely limited, particularly in primary care where insomnia is managed. One principal component of cognitive-behavioural therapy is a behavioural treatment called sleep restriction therapy, which could potentially be delivered as a brief single-component intervention by generalists in primary care. Objectives: The primary objective of the Health-professional Administered Brief Insomnia Therapy trial was to establish whether nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy in primary care improves insomnia relative to sleep hygiene. Secondary objectives were to establish whether nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy was cost-effective, and to undertake a process evaluation to understand intervention delivery, fidelity and acceptability. Design: Pragmatic, multicentre, individually randomised, parallel-group, superiority trial with embedded process evaluation. Setting: National Health Service general practice in three regions of England. Participants: Adults aged ≥ 18 years with insomnia disorder were randomised using a validated web-based randomisation programme. Interventions: Participants in the intervention group were offered a brief four-session nurse-delivered behavioural treatment involving two in-person sessions and two by phone. Participants were supported to follow a prescribed sleep schedule with the aim of restricting and standardising time in bed. Participants were also provided with a sleep hygiene leaflet. The control group received the same sleep hygiene leaflet by e-mail or post. There was no restriction on usual care. Main outcome measures: Outcomes were assessed at 3, 6 and 12 months. Participants were included in the primary analysis if they contributed at least one post-randomisation outcome. The primary end point was self-reported insomnia severity with the Insomnia Severity Index at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were health-related and sleep-related quality of life, depressive symptoms, work productivity and activity impairment, self-reported and actigraphy-defined sleep, and hypnotic medication use. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year. For the process evaluation, semistructured interviews were carried out with participants, nurses and practice managers or general practitioners. Due to the nature of the intervention, both participants and nurses were aware of group allocation. Results: We recruited 642 participants (n = 321 for sleep restriction therapy; n = 321 for sleep hygiene) between 29 August 2018 and 23 March 2020. Five hundred and eighty participants (90.3%) provided data at a minimum of one follow-up time point; 257 (80.1%) participants in the sleep restriction therapy arm and 291 (90.7%) participants in the sleep hygiene arm provided primary outcome data at 6 months. The estimated adjusted mean difference on the Insomnia Severity Index was -3.05 (95% confidence interval -3.83 to -2.28; p < 0.001, Cohen's d = -0.74), indicating that participants in the sleep restriction therapy arm [mean (standard deviation) Insomnia Severity Index = 10.9 (5.5)] reported lower insomnia severity compared to sleep hygiene [mean (standard deviation) Insomnia Severity Index = 13.9 (5.2)]. Large treatment effects were also found at 3 (d = -0.95) and 12 months (d = -0.72). Superiority of sleep restriction therapy over sleep hygiene was evident at 3, 6 and 12 months for self-reported sleep, mental health-related quality of life, depressive symptoms, work productivity impairment and sleep-related quality of life. Eight participants in each group experienced serious adverse events but none were judged to be related to the intervention. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was £2075.71, giving a 95.3% probability that the intervention is cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000. The process evaluation found that sleep restriction therapy was acceptable to both nurses and patients, and delivered with high fidelity. Limitations: While we recruited a clinical sample, 97% were of white ethnic background and 50% had a university degree, which may limit generalisability to the insomnia population in England. Conclusions: Brief nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy in primary care is clinically effective for insomnia disorder, safe, and likely to be cost-effective. Future work: Future work should examine the place of sleep restriction therapy in the insomnia treatment pathway, assess generalisability across diverse primary care patients with insomnia, and consider additional methods to enhance patient engagement with treatment. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN42499563. Funding: The award was funded by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/84/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 36. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Insomnia refers to problems with falling asleep or staying asleep, which affects 10% of the adult population. The recommended treatment for insomnia is a psychological treatment called cognitive­behavioural therapy. Research shows this to be a very effective and long-lasting treatment, but there are not enough trained therapists to support the large number of poor sleepers in the United Kingdom. We have developed a brief version of cognitive­behavioural therapy, called sleep restriction therapy, which involves supporting the patient to follow a new sleep­wake pattern. We carried out this study to see if sleep restriction therapy, given by nurses working in general practice, can improve insomnia and quality of life. We searched general practice records and invited people with insomnia to take part. Six hundred and forty-two participants were assigned, by chance, to either sleep restriction therapy or a comparison treatment, called sleep hygiene. Sleep restriction therapy involved meeting with a nurse on four occasions and following a prescribed sleep schedule. Sleep hygiene involved receiving a leaflet of sleep 'do's and dont's'. Those receiving sleep restriction therapy were also provided with the same sleep hygiene leaflet so that the difference between the two groups was whether or not they received nurse treatment. We measured sleep, quality of life, daytime functioning and use of sleep medication through questionnaires, before and after treatment. We calculated the cost to deliver the treatment, as well as the cost of other National Health Service treatments that participants accessed during the study. We also interviewed participants and nurses to understand their views of the treatment. We found that participants in the sleep restriction therapy group experienced greater reduction in their insomnia symptoms compared to sleep hygiene. They also experienced improved sleep, mental health, quality of life and work productivity. The two groups did not differ in their use of prescribed sleep medication. Our results suggest that the treatment is likely to represent good value for money for the National Health Service. Both nurses and participants considered the treatment to be acceptable and beneficial, and they suggested some potential refinements. The study shows that nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy is likely to be a clinically effective approach to the treatment of insomnia, and good value for money for the National Health Service.

What is the effect of bariatric surgery on health-related quality of life in people with obesity? observational cohort analysis of the United Kingdom national bariatric surgery registry.

BACKGROUND: Previous small studies investigating health-related quality of life (HRQoL) following bariatric surgery have demonstrated heterogenous effects. This study aimed to use National Bariatric Surgery Registry (NBSR) records to investigate the relationship between weight and HRQoL in people undergoing bariatric surgery in the UK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this observational study using United Kingdom National Bariatric Surgery Registry (NBSR) records between 1st June 2017 and 23rd November 2022, patients undergoing primary bariatric surgery with one baseline and at least one follow-up visit within one year from surgery were eligible for inclusion. Models estimated the relationship between EuroQol Five Dimension 5-level (EQ-5D) and BMI at baseline and longitudinally. Further analyses stratified by type 2 diabetes, type of operation (adjustable gastric band, sleeve, or bypass) and domain of EQ-5D. RESULTS: 5,587 observations of 2,160 patients were analysed. At baseline, mean BMI was 45.7±7.8 kg/m2 and mean EQ-5D was 0.78±0.22. A 1 kg/m2 higher BMI was associated with 0.005 (95%CI[-0.006,-0.004]) lower EQ-5D. In the month following surgery, EQ-5D increased to 0.91±0.2 while BMI decreased to 39.8±7.1 kg/m2 (P<0.001 for both); subsequently EQ-5D plateaued (0.90±0.17 at 12 months) while BMI continued to decrease (31.5±6.2 kg/m2 at 12 months, P<0.001). Each 1 kg/m2 decrease in BMI was associated with a 0.006 (95%CI [-0.007,-0.005]) increase in EQ-5D. Remission of T2D was independently associated with increase in EQ-5D (0.037, 95%CI [0.015,0.059]); type of operation was not. Decreases in BMI were associated with improvements in all five domains of EQ-5D. CONCLUSIONS: In this large dataset, greater weight loss and T2D remission were independently associated with greater improvements in HRQoL following bariatric surgery. The HRQoL-BMI relationship for people undergoing bariatric surgery differs to that which has previously been estimated following behavioural interventions. Use of the estimates generated here will be important for clinical and political decision making.

Early findings from the NHS Type 2 Diabetes Path to Remission Programme: a prospective evaluation of real-world implementation.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials have shown that total diet replacement (TDR) can lead to remission of type 2 diabetes. In 2019, the English National Health Service (NHS) committed to establishing a TDR-based interventional programme delivered at scale within real-world environments; development followed of the NHS Type 2 Diabetes Path to Remission (T2DR) programme, a 12-month behavioural intervention to support weight loss involving an initial 3-month period of TDR. We assessed remission of type 2 diabetes for programme participants. METHODS: In this national prospective service evaluation of programme implementation, people in England aged 18-65 years and diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in the last 6 years were referred to the programme between programme launch on Sept 1, 2020, and Dec 31, 2022. Programme data were linked to the National Diabetes Audit to ascertain HbA1c measurements and glucose-lowering medication prescriptions. The primary outcome was remission of type 2 diabetes at 1 year, defined as two HbA1c measurements of less than 48 mmol/mol recorded at least 3 months apart with no glucose-lowering medications prescribed from 3 months before the first HbA1c measurement, and the second HbA1c measurement recorded 11-15 months after the programme start date. Outcomes were assessed in two ways: for all participants who started TDR on the 12-month programme before January, 2022, for whom there were no missing data; and for all participants who started TDR on the 12-month programme before January, 2022, and had completed the programme (ie, had a valid weight recorded at month 12) by Dec 31, 2022, for whom there were no missing data. FINDINGS: Between Sept 1, 2020, and Dec 31, 2022, 7540 people were referred to the programme; of those, 1740 started TDR before January, 2022, and therefore had a full 12-month opportunity to undertake the programme by the time of data extraction at the end of December, 2022. Of those who started TDR before January, 2022, 960 (55%) completed the programme (defined as having a weight recorded at 12 months). The mean weight loss for the 1710 participants who started the programme before January, 2022 and had no missing data was 8·3% (95% CI 7·9-8·6) or 9·4 kg (8·9-9·8), and the mean weight loss for the 945 participants who completed the programme and had no missing data was 9·3% (8·8-9·8) or 10·3 kg (9·7-10·9). For the subgroup of 710 (42%) of 1710 participants who started the programme before January, 2022, and also had two HbA1c measurements recorded, 190 (27%) had remission, with mean weight loss of 13·4% (12·3-14·5) or 14·8 kg (13·4-16·3). Of the 945 participants who completed the programme, 450 (48%) had two HbA1c measurements recorded; of these, 145 (32%) had remission, with mean weight loss of 14·4% (13·2-15·5) or 15·9 kg (14·3-17·4). INTERPRETATION: Findings from the NHS T2DR programme show that remission of type 2 diabetes is possible outside of research settings, through at-scale service delivery. However, the rate of remission achieved is lower and the ascertainment of data is more limited with implementation in the real world than in randomised controlled trial settings. FUNDING: None.

Opportunistic smoking cessation interventions for people accessing financial support settings: A scoping review.

AIM: The aim of this work was to systematically scope the evidence on opportunistic tobacco smoking cessation interventions for people accessing financial support settings. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group specialized register to 21 March 2023. We duplicate screened 20% of titles/abstracts and all full texts. We included primary studies investigating smoking cessation interventions delivered opportunistically to people who smoked tobacco, within settings offering support for problems caused by financial hardship, for example homeless support services, social housing and food banks. Data were charted by one reviewer, checked by another and narratively synthesized. RESULTS: We included 25 studies conducted in a range of financial support settings using qualitative (e.g. interviews and focus groups) and quantitative (e.g. randomized controlled trials, surveys and single arm intervention studies) methodologies. Evidence on the acceptability and feasibility of opportunistic smoking cessation advice was investigated among both clients and providers. Approximately 90% of service providers supported such interventions; however, lack of resources, staff training and a belief that tobacco smoking reduced illicit substance use were perceived barriers. Clients welcomed being asked about smoking and offered assistance to quit and expressed interest in interventions including the provision of nicotine replacement therapy, e-cigarettes and incentives to quit smoking. Six studies investigated the comparative effectiveness of opportunistic smoking cessation interventions on quitting success, with five comparing more to less intensive interventions, with mixed results. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies investigating opportunistic smoking cessation interventions in financial support settings have not measured their effectiveness. Where they have, settings, populations, interventions and findings have varied. There is more evidence investigating acceptability, with promising results.

Smoking, nicotine and pregnancy 2 (SNAP2) trial: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of an intervention to improve adherence to nicotine replacement therapy during pregnancy.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking during pregnancy is harmful to unborn babies, infants and women. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is offered as the usual stop-smoking support in the UK. However, this is often used in insufficient doses, intermittently or for too short a time to be effective. This randomised controlled trial (RCT) explores whether a bespoke intervention, delivered in pregnancy, improves adherence to NRT and is effective and cost-effective for promoting smoking cessation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A two-arm parallel-group RCT was conducted for pregnant women aged ≥16 years and who smoke ≥1 daily cigarette (pre-pregnancy smoked ≥5) and who agree to use NRT in an attempt to quit. Recruitment is from antenatal care settings and via social media adverts. Participants are randomised using blocked randomisation with varying block sizes, stratified by gestational age (<14 or ≥14 weeks) to receive: (1) usual care (UC) for stop smoking support or (2) UC plus an intervention to increase adherence to NRT, called 'Baby, Me and NRT' (BMN), comprising adherence counselling, automated tailored text messages, a leaflet and website. The primary outcome is biochemically validated smoking abstinence at or around childbirth, measured from 36 weeks gestation. Secondary outcomes include NRT adherence, other smoking measures and birth outcomes. Questionnaires collect follow-up data augmented by medical record information. We anticipate quit rates of 10% and 16% in the control and intervention groups, respectively (risk ratio=1.6). By recruiting 1320 participants, the trial should have 90% power (alpha=5%) to detect this intervention effect. An economic analysis will use the Economics of Smoking in Pregnancy model to determine cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was granted by Bloomsbury National Health Service's Research Ethics Committee (21/LO/0123). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Findings will be disseminated to the public, funders, relevant practice/policy representatives, researchers and participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16830506. PROTOCOL VERSION: 5.0, 10 Oct 2023.

IntEgrating Smoking Cessation treAtment into usual online Psychological care for people with common mEntal illness: Protocol for an online randomised feasibility and pilot study (ESCAPE digital).

BACKGROUND: In the UK, smoking prevalence in people with depression (34%) and anxiety (29%) is more than double that of the general population (13%). People who stop smoking improve their mental health with comparable effect sizes found for antidepressants. In England, online psychological therapy is a standard treatment for depression and anxiety. Online therapy is an acceptable setting for smoking cessation support; however, integrated smoking and mental health support is not available. This novel study aims to assess the acceptability and feasibility of an online smoking cessation intervention, and trial procedures, offered alongside online mental health treatment as it offers increased reach to people with common mental health difficulties who smoke. METHODS: A two-armed; Intervention (Integrated SilverCloud smoking cessation support) and control group (SilverCloud usual care), pragmatic, randomised controlled feasibility trial. We aim to recruit 500 adult smokers eligible for online mental health treatment. Follow-up will be conducted at 3-months and 6-months. We will assess the acceptability and feasibility of the trial procedures (i.e., recruitment, data completeness, self-reported acceptability and satisfaction) and the intervention (i.e., self-reported quit attempt, engagement with the smoking cessation and mental health programs, smoking cessation medicine and e-cigarette use, self-reported acceptability and satisfaction) and pilot clinical outcomes (i.e., biologically validated smoking abstinence, anxiety, depression, quality of health). CONCLUSION: If the Trial is successful, a randomised controlled effectiveness trial will follow to examine whether integrated smoking cessation and mental health treatment increases smoking abstinence and improves depression and anxiety compared to usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN10612149 (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN10612149), 02/02/2023.

Evaluating the efficacy and mechanisms of a ketogenic diet as adjunctive treatment for people with treatment-resistant depression: A protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: One-third of people with depression do not respond to antidepressants, and, after two adequate courses of antidepressants, are classified as having treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Some case reports suggest that ketogenic diets (KDs) may improve some mental illnesses, and preclinical data indicate that KDs can influence brain reward signalling, anhedonia, cortisol, and gut microbiome which are associated with depression. To date, no trials have examined the clinical effect of a KD on TRD. METHODS: This is a proof-of-concept randomised controlled trial to investigate the efficacy of a six-week programme of weekly dietitian counselling plus provision of KD meals, compared with an intervention involving similar dietetic contact time and promoting a healthy diet with increased vegetable consumption and reduction in saturated fat, plus food vouchers to purchase healthier items. At 12 weeks we will assess whether participants have continued to follow the assigned diet. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in the change in Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) score from baseline to 6 weeks. PHQ-9 will be measured at weeks 2, 4, 6 and 12. The secondary outcomes are the differences between groups in the change in remission of depression, change in anxiety score, functioning ability, quality of life, cognitive performance, reward sensitivity, and anhedonia from baseline to 6 and 12 weeks. We will also assess whether changes in reward sensitivity, anhedonia, cortisol awakening response and gut microbiome may explain any changes in depression severity. DISCUSSION: This study will test whether a ketogenic diet is an effective intervention to reduce the severity of depression, anxiety and improve quality of life and functioning ability for people with treatment-resistant depression.

Early outcomes of referrals to the English National Health Service Digital Weight Management Programme.

OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to assess participant weight change for the English National Health Service (NHS) Digital Weight Management Programme, the first such digital intervention to achieve population coverage. METHODS: A service evaluation was used to assess intervention effectiveness for adults with obesity and a diagnosis of hypertension and/or diabetes, between April 2021 and March 2022, using prospectively collected, national service-level data in England. RESULTS: Of the 63,937 referrals made from general practices, within the time period, 31,861 (50%) chose to take up the 12-week Programme. There were 31,718 participants who had time to finish the Programme; of those, 14,268 completed the Programme (defined as attending ≥60%), a 45% completion rate. The mean weight change for those who had time to finish the Programme was -2.2 kg (95% CI: -2.25 to -2.16), for those who completed it was -3.9 kg (95% CI: -3.99 to -3.84), and for those who had time to finish the Programme but did not complete it was -0.74 kg (95% CI: -0.79 to -0.70). CONCLUSIONS: The NHS Digital Weight Management Programme is effective at achieving clinically meaningful weight loss. The outcomes compare favorably to web-based weight management interventions tested in randomized trials and those delivered as face-to-face interventions, and results suggest that the approach may, with increased participation, bring population-level benefits.

How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected the delivery of preventive healthcare? An interrupted time series analysis of adults in English primary care from 2018 to 2022.

OBJECTIVE: Offering advice and support for smoking, obesity, excess alcohol, and physical inactivity is an evidence-based component of primary care. The objective was to quantify the impact of the pandemic on the rate of advice or referral for these four risk factors. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using primary care data from 1847 practices in England and 21,191,389 patients contributing to the Oxford Clinical Informatics Digital Hub. An interrupted time series analysis was undertaken with a single change point (March 2020). Monthly trends were modelled from 1st January 2018 - 30th June 2022 using segmented linear regression. RESULTS: There was an initial step reduction in advice and referrals for smoking, obesity, excess alcohol, and physical inactivity in March 2020. By June 2022, advice on smoking (slope change -0.02 events per hundred patient years/month (EPH/month); 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17, 0.21), obesity (0.06 EPH/month; 95% CI 0.01, 0.12), alcohol (0.02 EPH/month; 95% CI -0.01, 0.05) and physical inactivity (0.05 EPH/month; 95% CI 0.01, 0.09) had not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Similarly, smoking cessation referral remained lower (0.01 EPH/month; 95% CI -0.01, 0.09), excess alcohol referral returned to similar levels (0.0005 EPH/month; 95% CI 0.0002, 0.0008), while referral for obesity (0.14 EPH/month; 95% CI 0.10, 0.19) and physical inactivity (0.01 EPH/month; 95% CI 0.01, 0.02) increased relative to pre-pandemic rates. CONCLUSION: Advice and support for smoking, and advice for weight, excess alcohol and physical inactivity have not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Clinicians and policy makers should prioritise preventive care in COVID-19 recovery plans.

Identifying Preferred Features of Weight Loss Programs for Adults With or at Risk of Type 2 Diabetes: A Discrete Choice Experiment With 3,960 Adults in the U.K.

OBJECTIVE: To understand preferences for features of weight loss programs among adults with or at risk of type 2 diabetes in the U.K. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a discrete choice experiment with 3,960 U.K. adults living with overweight (n = 675 with type 2 diabetes). Preferences for seven characteristics of weight loss programs were analyzed. Simulations from choice models using the experimental data predicted uptake of available weight loss programs. Patient groups comprising those who have experience with weight loss programs, including from minority communities, informed the experimental design. RESULTS: Preferences did not differ between individuals with and without type 2 diabetes. Preferences were strongest for type of diet. Healthy eating was most preferred relative to total diet replacement (odds ratio [OR] 2.24; 95% CI 2.04-2.44). Individual interventions were more popular than group interventions (OR 1.40; 95% CI 1.34-1.47). Participants preferred programs offering weight loss of 10-15 kg (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.28-1.47) to those offering loss of 2-4 kg. Online content was preferred over in-person contact (OR 1.24; 95% CI 1.18-1.30). There were few differences in preferences by gender or ethnicity, although weight loss was more important to women than to men, and individuals from ethnic minority populations identified more with programs where others shared their characteristics. Modeling suggested that tailoring programs to individual preferences could increase participation by ∼17 percentage points (68% in relative terms). CONCLUSIONS: Offering a range of weight loss programs targeting the preferred attributes of different patient groups could potentially encourage more people to participate in weight loss programs and support those living with overweight to reduce their weight.

Nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy in primary care for adults with insomnia disorder: a mixed-methods process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Sleep restriction therapy (SRT) is a behavioural therapy for insomnia. AIM: To conduct a process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial comparing SRT delivered by primary care nurses plus a sleep hygiene booklet with the sleep hygiene booklet only for adults with insomnia disorder. DESIGN AND SETTING: A mixed-methods process evaluation in a general practice setting. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in a purposive sample of patients receiving SRT, the practice nurses who delivered the therapy, and also GPs or practice managers at the participating practices. Qualitative data were explored using framework analysis, and integrated with nurse comments and quantitative data, including baseline Insomnia Severity Index score and serial sleep efficiency outcomes to investigate the relationships between these. RESULTS: In total, 16 patients, 13 nurses, six practice managers, and one GP were interviewed. Patients had no previous experience of behavioural therapy, needed flexible appointment times, and preferred face-to-face consultations; nurses felt prepared to deliver SRT, accommodating patient concerns, tailoring therapy, and negotiating sleep timings despite treatment complexity and delays between training and intervention delivery. How the intervention produced change was explored, including patient and nurse interactions and patient responses to SRT. Difficulties maintaining SRT, negative attitudes towards treatment, and low self-efficacy were highlighted. Contextual factors, including freeing GP time, time constraints, and conflicting priorities for nurses, with suggestions for alternative delivery options, were raised. Participants who found SRT a positive process showed improvements in sleep efficiency, whereas those who struggled did not. CONCLUSION: SRT was successfully delivered by practice nurses and was generally well received by patients, despite some difficulties delivering and applying the intervention in practice.

Weight regain does not eliminate the long term benefits of weight management programmes.

The studyHartmann-Boyce J, Theodoulou A, Oke JL, et al. Long term effect of weight regain following behavioral weight management programs on cardiometabolic disease incidence and risk: systematic review and meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2023;16:263-76.To read the full NIHR Alert, go to: https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/weight-regain-does-not-eliminate-the-long-term-benefits-of-weight-management-programmes/#:~:text=Study%20author&text=Many%20people%20believe%20that%20if,been%20the%20case%20without%20it.

Relationship Between Clinician Language and the Success of Behavioral Weight Loss Interventions : A Mixed-Methods Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend that primary care clinicians recognize obesity and offer treatment opportunistically, but there is little evidence on how clinicians can discuss weight and offer treatment in ways that are well received and effective. OBJECTIVE: To examine relationships between language used in the clinical visit and patient weight loss. DESIGN: Mixed-methods cohort study. SETTING: 38 primary care clinics in England participating in the Brief Intervention for Weight Loss trial. PARTICIPANTS: 246 patients with obesity seen by 87 general practitioners randomly sampled from the intervention group of the randomized clinical trial. MEASUREMENTS: Conversation analysis of recorded discussions between 246 patients with obesity and 87 clinicians regarding referral to a 12-week behavioral weight management program offered as part of the randomized clinical trial. Clinicians' interactional approaches were identified and their association with patient weight loss at 12 months (primary outcome) was examined. Secondary outcomes included patients' agreement to attend weight management, attendance, loss of 5% body weight, actions taken to lose weight, and postvisit satisfaction. RESULTS: Three interactional approaches were identified on the basis of clinicians' linguistic and paralinguistic practices: creating a sense of referrals as "good news" related to the opportunity of the referral (n = 62); "bad news," focusing on the harms of obesity (n = 82); or neutral (n = 102). Outcome data were missing from 57 participants, so weighted analyses were done to adjust for missingness. Relative to neutral news, good news was associated with increased agreement to attend the program (adjusted risk difference, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.15 to 0.35]), increased attendance (adjusted risk difference, 0.45 [CI, 0.34 to 0.56]), and weight change (adjusted difference, -3.60 [CI, -6.58 to -0.62]). There was no evidence of differences in mean weight change comparing bad and neutral news, and no evidence of differences in patient satisfaction across all 3 approaches. LIMITATIONS: Data were audio only, so body language and nonverbal cues could not be assessed. There is potential for selection bias and residual confounding. CONCLUSION: When raising the topic of excess weight in clinical visits, presenting weight loss treatment as a positive opportunity is associated with greater uptake of treatment and greater weight loss. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute for Health and Care Research School for Primary Care Research and the Foundation for the Sociology of Health and Illness.

The Basis of Patient Resistance to Opportunistic Discussions About Weight in Primary Care.

Clinicians expect that talking to patients with obesity about potential/future weight loss will be a difficult conversation, especially if it is not the reason that a patient is seeking medical help. Despite this expectation, many governments ask clinicians to take every opportunity to talk to patients about weight to help manage increasing levels of obesity. Although this is recommended, little is known about what happens in consultations when clinicians opportunistically talk to patients about weight, and if the anticipated difficulties are reality. This paper examines displays of explicit patient resistance following opportunistic weight-loss conversations initiated by GPs. We analyzed audio recordings and transcribed them for conversation analysis. We focused on the precursors of explicit resistance displays during opportunistic weight loss discussions, the format of the resistance, and the ways it was managed by GPs. We found relatively few instances of explicit resistance displays. When it did occur, rather than be related to the opportunistic nature of the advice, or the topic of weight itself, resistance was nuanced and associated to the sensitivity of the GPs managing unknown patient levels of awareness of weight loss benefits, or prior efforts to lose weight. Clinicians tended not to challenge this resistance from patients, and we suggest this tactic may be acceptable to patients and help foster the long-term collaborative relationships needed to tackle obesity. Data are in British English.

Pharmacological and electronic cigarette interventions for smoking cessation in adults: component network meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disease worldwide. Stopping smoking can reduce this harm and many people would like to stop. There are a number of medicines licenced to help people quit globally, and e-cigarettes are used for this purpose in many countries. Typically treatments work by reducing cravings to smoke, thus aiding initial abstinence and preventing relapse. More information on comparative effects of these treatments is needed to inform treatment decisions and policies. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the comparative benefits, harms and tolerability of different smoking cessation pharmacotherapies and e-cigarettes, when used to help people stop smoking tobacco. SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies from recent updates of Cochrane Reviews investigating our interventions of interest. We updated the searches for each review using the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group (TAG) specialised register to 29 April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and factorial RCTs, which measured smoking cessation at six months or longer, recruited adults who smoked combustible cigarettes at enrolment (excluding pregnant people) and randomised them to approved pharmacotherapies and technologies used for smoking cessation worldwide (varenicline, cytisine, nortriptyline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and e-cigarettes) versus no pharmacological intervention, placebo (control) or another approved pharmacotherapy. Studies providing co-interventions (e.g. behavioural support) were eligible if the co-intervention was provided equally to study arms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening, data extraction and risk of bias (RoB) assessment (using the RoB 1 tool). Primary outcome measures were smoking cessation at six months or longer, and the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs). We also measured withdrawals due to treatment. We used Bayesian component network meta-analyses (cNMA) to examine intervention type, delivery mode, dose, duration, timing in relation to quit day and tapering of nicotine dose, using odds ratios (OR) and 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). We calculated an effect estimate for combination NRT using an additive model. We evaluated the influence of population and study characteristics, provision of behavioural support and control arm rates using meta-regression. We evaluated certainty using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Of our 332 eligible RCTs, 319 (835 study arms, 157,179 participants) provided sufficient data to be included in our cNMA. Of these, we judged 51 to be at low risk of bias overall, 104 at high risk and 164 at unclear risk, and 118 reported pharmaceutical or e-cigarette/tobacco industry funding. Removing studies at high risk of bias did not change our interpretation of the results. Benefits We found high-certainty evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes (OR 2.37, 95% CrI 1.73 to 3.24; 16 RCTs, 3828 participants), varenicline (OR 2.33, 95% CrI 2.02 to 2.68; 67 RCTs, 16,430 participants) and cytisine (OR 2.21, 95% CrI 1.66 to 2.97; 7 RCTs, 3848 participants) were associated with higher quit rates than control. In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional eight (95% CrI 4 to 13), eight (95% CrI 6 to 10) and seven additional quitters per 100 (95% CrI 4 to 12), respectively. These interventions appeared to be more effective than the other interventions apart from combination NRT (patch and a fast-acting form of NRT), which had a lower point estimate (calculated additive effect) but overlapping 95% CrIs (OR 1.93, 95% CrI 1.61 to 2.34). There was also high-certainty evidence that nicotine patch alone (OR 1.37, 95% CrI 1.20 to 1.56; 105 RCTs, 37,319 participants), fast-acting NRT alone (OR 1.41, 95% CrI 1.29 to 1.55; 120 RCTs, 31,756 participants) and bupropion (OR 1.43, 95% CrI 1.26 to 1.62; 71 RCTs, 14,759 participants) were more effective than control, resulting in two (95% CrI 1 to 3), three (95% CrI 2 to 3) and three (95% CrI 2 to 4) additional quitters per 100 respectively. Nortriptyline is probably associated with higher quit rates than control (OR 1.35, 95% CrI 1.02 to 1.81; 10 RCTs, 1290 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), resulting in two (CrI 0 to 5) additional quitters per 100. Non-nicotine/placebo e-cigarettes (OR 1.16, 95% CrI 0.74 to 1.80; 8 RCTs, 1094 participants; low-certainty evidence), equating to one additional quitter (95% CrI -2 to 5), had point estimates favouring the intervention over control, but CrIs encompassed the potential for no difference and harm. There was low-certainty evidence that tapering the dose of NRT prior to stopping treatment may improve effectiveness; however, 95% CrIs also incorporated the null (OR 1.14, 95% CrI 1.00 to 1.29; 111 RCTs, 33,156 participants). This might lead to an additional one quitter per 100 (95% CrI 0 to 2). Harms There were insufficient data to include nortriptyline and non-nicotine EC in the final SAE model. Overall rates of SAEs for the remaining treatments were low (average 3%). Low-certainty evidence did not show a clear difference in the number of people reporting SAEs for nicotine e-cigarettes, varenicline, cytisine or NRT when compared to no pharmacotherapy/e-cigarettes or placebo. Bupropion may slightly increase rates of SAEs, although the CrI also incorporated no difference (moderate certainty). In absolute terms bupropion may cause one more person in 100 to experience an SAE (95% CrI 0 to 2). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The most effective interventions were nicotine e-cigarettes, varenicline and cytisine (all high certainty), as well as combination NRT (additive effect, certainty not rated). There was also high-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of nicotine patch, fast-acting NRT and bupropion. Less certain evidence of benefit was present for nortriptyline (moderate certainty), non-nicotine e-cigarettes and tapering of nicotine dose (both low certainty). There was moderate-certainty evidence that bupropion may slightly increase the frequency of SAEs, although there was also the possibility of no increased risk. There was no clear evidence that any other tested interventions increased SAEs. Overall, SAE data were sparse with very low numbers of SAEs, and so further evidence may change our interpretation and certainty. Future studies should report SAEs to strengthen certainty in this outcome. More head-to-head comparisons of the most effective interventions are needed, as are tests of combinations of these. Future work should unify data from behavioural and pharmacological interventions to inform approaches to combined support for smoking cessation.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy for insomnia in primary care (HABIT): a pragmatic, superiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Insomnia is prevalent and distressing but access to the first-line treatment, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), is extremely limited. We aimed to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of sleep restriction therapy, a key component of CBT, which has the potential to be widely implemented. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, superiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial of sleep restriction therapy versus sleep hygiene. Adults with insomnia disorder were recruited from 35 general practices across England and randomly assigned (1:1) using a web-based randomisation programme to either four sessions of nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy plus a sleep hygiene booklet or a sleep hygiene booklet only. There was no restriction on usual care for either group. Outcomes were assessed at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. The primary endpoint was self-reported insomnia severity at 6 months measured with the insomnia severity index (ISI). The primary analysis included participants according to their allocated group and who contributed at least one outcome measurement. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from the UK National Health Service and personal social services perspective and expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The trial was prospectively registered (ISRCTN42499563). FINDINGS: Between Aug 29, 2018, and March 23, 2020 we randomly assigned 642 participants to sleep restriction therapy (n=321) or sleep hygiene (n=321). Mean age was 55·4 years (range 19-88), with 489 (76·2%) participants being female and 153 (23·8%) being male. 580 (90·3%) participants provided data for at least one outcome measurement. At 6 months, mean ISI score was 10·9 (SD 5·5) for sleep restriction therapy and 13·9 (5·2) for sleep hygiene (adjusted mean difference -3·05, 95% CI -3·83 to -2·28; p<0·0001; Cohen's d -0·74), indicating that participants in the sleep restriction therapy group reported lower insomnia severity than the sleep hygiene group. The incremental cost per QALY gained was £2076, giving a 95·3% probability that treatment was cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000. Eight participants in each group had serious adverse events, none of which were judged to be related to intervention. INTERPRETATION: Brief nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy in primary care reduces insomnia symptoms, is likely to be cost-effective, and has the potential to be widely implemented as a first-line treatment for insomnia disorder. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

A low-energy total diet replacement program demonstrates a favorable safety profile and improves liver disease severity in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis.

OBJECTIVE: Low-energy diets are used to treat obesity and diabetes, but there are fears that they may worsen liver disease in patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) and significant-to-advanced fibrosis. METHODS: In this 24-week single-arm trial, 16 adults with NASH, fibrosis, and obesity received one-to-one remote dietetic support to follow a low-energy (880 kcal/d) total diet replacement program for 12 weeks and stepped food reintroduction for another 12 weeks. Liver disease severity was blindly evaluated (magnetic resonance imaging proton density fat fraction [MRI-PDFF], iron-corrected T1 [cT1], liver stiffness on magnetic resonance elastography [MRE], and liver stiffness on vibration-controlled transient elastography [VCTE]). Safety signals included liver biochemical markers and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 14 participants (87.5%) completed the intervention. Weight loss was 15% (95% CI: 11.2%-18.6%) at 24 weeks. Compared with baseline, MRI-PDFF reduced by 13.1% (95% CI: 8.9%-16.7%), cT1 by 159 milliseconds (95% CI: 108-216.5), MRE liver stiffness by 0.4 kPa (95% CI: 0.1-0.8), and VCTE liver stiffness by 3.9 kPa (95% CI: 2.6-7.2) at 24 weeks. The proportions with clinically relevant reductions in MRI-PDFF (≥30%), cT1 (≥88 milliseconds), MRE liver stiffness (≥19%), and VCTE liver stiffness (≥19%) were 93%, 77%, 57%, and 93%, respectively. Liver biochemical markers improved. There were no serious intervention-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention demonstrates high adherence, favorable safety profile, and promising efficacy as a treatment for NASH.

Clinician resistance to broaching the topic of weight in primary care: Digging deeper into weight management using strong structuration theory.

Clinical trials have shown that providing advice and support for people with excess weight can lead to meaningful weight loss. Despite this evidence and guidelines endorsing this approach, provision in real-world clinical settings remains low. We used Strong Structuration Theory (SST) to understand why people are often not offered weight management advice in primary care in England. Data from policy, clinical practice and focus groups were analysed using SST to consider how the interplay between weight stigma and structures of professional responsibilities influenced clinicians to raise (or not) the issue of excess weight with patients. We found that general practitioners (GPs) often accounted for their actions by referring to obesity as a health problem, consistent with policy documents and clinical guidelines. However, they were also aware of weight stigma as a social process that can be internalised by their patients. GPs identified addressing obesity as a priority in their work, but described wanting to care for their patients by avoiding unnecessary suffering, which they were concerned could be caused by talking about weight. We observed tensions between knowledge of clinical guidelines and understanding of the lived experience of their patients. We interpreted that the practice of 'caring by not offering care' produced the outcome of an absence of weight management advice in consultations. There is a risk that this outcome reinforces the external structure of weight stigma as a delicate topic to be avoided, while at the same time denying patients the offer of support to manage their weight.

GP delivered brief weight loss advice: associations between in-consultation behaviour change techniques and patient weight loss in recorded primary care discussions.

Background: Primary care clinicians are encouraged to intervene opportunistically, offering weight-loss advice to people living with obesity. The BWeL trial showed patients receiving brief weight-loss advice from their general practitioner lost weight at one year follow-up. We examined the behaviour change techniques (BCTs) clinicians used to identify which BCTs are associated with this weight loss. Methods: We coded 224 audio recorded interventions from the BWeL trial using the behavioural change techniques version one taxonomy (BCTTv1) and the 'refined taxonomy of behaviour change techniques to help people change their physical activity and healthy eating behaviours' (CALOR-RE taxonomy). Linear and logistic regressions were performed to analyse associations between behaviour change techniques used in these taxonomies and patient weight loss. Results: Mean intervention length was 86 s. We identified 28 different BCTs BCTTv1 and 22 from CALOR-RE. No BCTs or BCT domains were associated with mean weight loss at 12 months, loss of 5% bodyweight, or action taken at 3 months. The BCT 'Feedback on outcomes of behaviour (future)' was associated with an increased likelihood that the patient reported taking action to lose weight by 12 months (OR = 6.10, 95%CI = 1.20, 31.0). Conclusion: Although we found no evidence to support the use of particular BCTs, our results suggest that it is the brief intervention itself, rather than specific content, which may motivate weight loss. This can support clinicians to confidently intervene without needing complex training. Offering follow-up appointments can support positive changes to health behaviours, even if these are not associated with weight loss.