Obesity Medicine Intervention at an Academic Medical Center in a Resource-Limited Population Shows Promise.

INTRODUCTION: Obesity disproportionately affects some non-White and low-socioeconomic-status Americans. Medical obesity treatment includes aggressive lifestyle interventions with medications when applicable. We evaluated a physician-led, resource-limited obesity medicine program. METHODS: This retrospective review included 98 adults with BMI >30 completing three or more obesity medicine physician visits, without bariatric surgery before or during Oct 2019-Feb 2022 at an academic medical center in Newark, N.J. Outcomes included changes in weight, HbA1c, blood pressure, and lipids. RESULTS: Sixty-eight percent (68%) of patients lost weight, with one-third losing 5% or more of total weight. Almost 30% (29.3%) gained and 2.4% maintained weight. Number of visits (p<.01) and GLP-1 receptor agonist use predicted weight loss (p<.05). Hemoglobin A1c decreased (p<.01); blood pressure and lipids did not. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that medical weight management programs can achieve meaningful weight loss, despite resource limitations. Patients using GLP-1 receptor agonists lost more weight compared with other agents, even on suboptimal doses.

An Educational Session for Medical Students Exploring Weight Bias in Clinical Care Through the Lens of Body Diversity.

Introduction: Weight bias is pervasive in health care and can lead to inadequate care for people with higher weight. However, few medical schools offer training on mitigating weight bias and incorporating body diversity into clinical care. Methods: As part of a course for second-year medical students, we developed and implemented a 3-hour multimodal educational session on mitigating weight bias. Didactics included content on body diversity and addressing weight bias, followed by a facilitated case discussion in small groups focused on debunking common myths related to weight. Assessment consisted of an open-content quiz and evaluation of a postsession survey. We performed a thematic analysis of the essay quiz responses and evaluation survey results. Results: Three hundred fifty-three students participated in academic years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. In the postsession quiz, students described several learning points, including understanding environmental influences on body size, improving communication by reducing weight bias, and strengthening the patient-provider relationship. In the postsession evaluation, students reported that their knowledge and skills had improved with respect to the learning objectives, with means of 4.0-4.1 on a 5-point Likert scale. Areas for suggested improvement included more time for discussion and more guidance on weight-inclusive care. Discussion: This multimodal educational session on weight bias was successful in meeting the stated learning objectives. Future work will consist of building on this content and extending future iterations to residents and attendings, with the goal of disrupting harmful assumptions and improving access to holistic, evidence-based care for all people, regardless of size.

Attitudes About Lung Cancer Screening: Primary Care Providers Versus Specialists.

BACKGROUND: On the basis of the results of the National Lung Screening Trial, the US Preventive Services Task Force now recommends yearly low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening among high-risk individuals. There is limited information regarding physician attitudes toward LDCT screening and whether these vary according to provider specialty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists were surveyed about their knowledge and attitudes toward lung cancer screening and likelihood to order an LDCT screening. Descriptive and univariate analyses were used to assess differences between PCPs versus specialists. RESULTS: Of the 103 respondents 69% were PCPs, 45% were attending-level physicians, 42% were male, and most (51%) worked in mixed outpatient/inpatient practice settings. Compared with specialists, PCPs were less likely to feel confident in their ability to identify appropriate patients for lung cancer screening (63.8% vs. 93.5%; P < .01) or to decide the workup of patients with positive LDCT findings (52.9% vs. 93.5%; P < .01). PCPs were also less likely to believe that the recommended yearly screening interval is feasible (27.5% vs. 86.7%; P < .01), to feel comfortable counseling patients on LDCT (51.4% vs. 82.8%; P = .01) or have sufficient time for counseling (14.3% vs. 50%; P < .01). Despite these differences, PCPs were equally as likely as specialists to recommend LDCT for their high-risk smokers. CONCLUSION: Despite feeling less confident and knowledgeable about lung cancer screening, PCPs are as likely as specialists to recommend LDCT screening. However, PCPs need further education to ensure the success of lung cancer screening programs.