Extended and standard duration weight-loss programme referrals for adults in primary care (WRAP): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence exist that primary care referral to an open-group behavioural programme is an effective strategy for management of obesity, but little evidence on optimal intervention duration is available. We aimed to establish whether 52-week referral to an open-group weight-management programme would achieve greater weight loss and improvements in a range of health outcomes and be more cost-effective than the current practice of 12-week referrals. METHODS: In this non-blinded, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, we recruited participants who were aged 18 years or older and had body-mass index (BMI) of 28 kg/m2 or higher from 23 primary care practices in England. Participants were randomly assigned (2:5:5) to brief advice and self-help materials, a weight-management programme (Weight Watchers) for 12 weeks, or the same weight-management programme for 52 weeks. We followed-up participants over 2 years. The primary outcome was weight at 1 year of follow-up, analysed with mixed-effects models according to intention-to-treat principles and adjusted for centre and baseline weight. In a hierarchical closed-testing procedure, we compared combined behavioural programme arms with brief intervention, then compared the 12-week programme and 52-week programme. We did a within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis using person-level data and modelled outcomes over a 25-year time horizon using microsimulation. This study is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN82857232. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2012, and Feb 10, 2014, we enrolled 1269 participants. 1267 eligible participants were randomly assigned to the brief intervention (n=211), the 12-week programme (n=528), and the 52-week programme (n=528). Two participants in the 12-week programme had been found to be ineligible shortly after randomisation and were excluded from the analysis. 823 (65%) of 1267 participants completed an assessment at 1 year and 856 (68%) participants at 2 years. All eligible participants were included in the analyses. At 1 year, mean weight changes in the groups were -3·26 kg (brief intervention), -4·75 kg (12-week programme), and -6·76 kg (52-week programme). Participants in the behavioural programme lost more weight than those in the brief intervention (adjusted difference -2·71 kg, 95% CI -3·86 to -1·55; p<0·0001). The 52-week programme was more effective than the 12-week programme (-2·14 kg, -3·05 to -1·22; p<0·0001). Differences between groups were still significant at 2 years. No adverse events related to the intervention were reported. Over 2 years, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER; compared with brief intervention) was £159 per kg lost for the 52-week programme and £91 per kg for the 12-week programme. Modelled over 25 years after baseline, the ICER for the 12-week programme was dominant compared with the brief intervention. The ICER for the 52-week programme was cost-effective compared with the brief intervention (£2394 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]) and the 12-week programme (£3804 per QALY). INTERPRETATION: For adults with overweight or obesity, referral to this open-group behavioural weight-loss programme for at least 12 weeks is more effective than brief advice and self-help materials. A 52-week programme produces greater weight loss and other clinical benefits than a 12-week programme and, although it costs more, modelling suggests that the 52-week programme is cost-effective in the longer term. FUNDING: National Prevention Research Initiative, Weight Watchers International (as part of an UK Medical Research Council Industrial Collaboration Award).

Experiences of a commercial weight-loss programme after primary care referral: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Referral to a commercial weight-loss programme is a cost-effective intervention that is already used within the NHS. Qualitative research suggests this community-based, non-medical intervention accords with participants' view of weight management as a lifestyle issue. AIM: To examine the ways in which participants' attitudes and beliefs about accessing a commercial weight management programme via their doctor relate to their weight-loss experience, and to understand how these contextual factors influence motivation and adherence to the intervention. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study embedded in a randomised controlled trial evaluating primary care referral to a commercial weight-loss programme in adults who are overweight or obese in England. The study took place from June-September 2013. METHOD: Twenty-nine participants (body mass index [BMI] ≥28 kg/m(2); age ≥18 years), who took part in the WRAP (Weight Loss Referrals for Adults in Primary Care) trial, were recruited at their 3-month assessment appointment to participate in a semi-structured interview about their experience of the intervention and weight management more generally. Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed inductively using a narrative approach. RESULTS: Although participants view the lifestyle-based, non-medical commercial programme as an appropriate intervention for weight management, the referral from the GP and subsequent clinical assessments frame their experience of the intervention as medically pertinent with clear health benefits. CONCLUSION: Referral by the GP and follow-up assessment appointments were integral to participant experiences of the intervention, and could be adapted for use in general practice potentially to augment treatment effects.

Weight loss referrals for adults in primary care (WRAP): protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of primary care referral to a commercial weight loss provider for 12 weeks, referral for 52 weeks, and a brief self-help intervention [ISRCTN82857232].

BACKGROUND: Recent trials demonstrate the acceptability and short term efficacy of primary care referral to a commercial weight loss provider for weight management. Commissioners now need information on the optimal duration of intervention and the longer term outcomes and cost effectiveness of such treatment to give best value for money. METHODS/DESIGN: This multicentre, randomised controlled trial with a parallel design will recruit 1200 overweight adults (BMI ≥28 kg/m2) through their primary care provider. They will be randomised in a 2:5:5 allocation to: Brief Intervention, Commercial Programme for 12 weeks, or Commercial Programme for 52 weeks. Participants will be followed up for two years, with assessments at 0, 3, 12 and 24 months. The sequential primary research questions are whether the CP interventions achieve significantly greater weight loss from baseline to 12 months than BI, and whether CP52 achieves significantly greater weight loss from baseline to 12 months than CP12. The primary outcomes will be an intention to treat analysis of between treatment differences in body weight at 12 months. Clinical effectiveness will be also be assessed by measures of weight, fat mass, and blood pressure at each time point and biochemical risk factors at 12 months. Self-report questionnaires will collect data on psychosocial factors associated with adherence, weight-loss and weight-loss maintenance. A within-trial and long-term cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted from an NHS perspective. Qualitative methods will be used to examine the participant experience. DISCUSSION: The current trial compares the clinical and cost effectiveness of referral to a commercial provider with a brief intervention. This trial will specifically examine whether providing longer weight-loss treatment without altering content or intensity (12 months commercial referral vs. 12 weeks) leads to greater weight loss at one year and is sustained at 2 years. It will also evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of the three interventions. This study has direct implications for primary care practice in the UK and will provide important information to inform the decisions of practitioners and commissioners about service provision. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN82857232. Date registered: 15/10/2012.

Participants' explanatory model of being overweight and their experiences of 2 weight loss interventions.

PURPOSE: We explored participants' accounts of weight loss interventions to illuminate the reasons behind the greater weight loss observed among those attending a commercial program compared with those receiving standard care in a recent large-scale trial. We further wanted to examine how participants' general explanatory model of being overweight related to the 2 different interventions. METHODS: Our study was based on thematic analysis of semistructured telephone interviews with a purposeful sample of 16 female participants from the UK center of a randomized controlled trial of weight loss in primary care. RESULTS: The commercial provider delivered weight management in a nonmedical context, which mirrors how participants regard being overweight. Participants felt they needed support and motivation rather than education, and valued the ease of access and frequent contact the commercial provider offered. Some participants preferred individual level support with their primary care clinician, and all were positive about the opportunity to access support through the primary care setting. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care referral to a commercial weight loss program for people who do not require specific clinical care appears to be in accord with their general explanatory model about being overweight, offering motivation and support to lose weight outside a strictly medical context. This approach may not be effective or acceptable for everyone, however, and there are likely to be considerable variations in the explanatory models held. Findings support the argument that a range of evidence-based options for weight management should be available in primary care.

Varying uses of the ABCD2 scoring system in primary and secondary care: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the usage of the ABCD2 risk stratification score by general practitioners (GPs) and hospital staff during the referral of patients with suspected transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or minor stroke. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews. SETTING: Nine general practices and two hospital sites in England (Birmingham and Cambridge). PARTICIPANTS: Nine GPs and nine hospital staff (two consultants, four nurses, two ultrasonographers and one administrator). RESULTS: In both sites, clinicians used a referral proforma based around the ABCD2 scoring system for a range of purposes including self-education, to assist emphasising urgency to the patient, as a referral pathway facilitator and as a diagnostic tool. Negative views of its role included potential medicolegal threats, that it was a barrier to appropriate care, and led to misdiagnoses. Despite having differing uses by different clinicians, the ABCD2 proforma was the central means of interprofessional communication in TIA referrals across both sites. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding how prediction rules are used in practice is key to determining their impact on processes of care and clinical outcomes. In practice, GPs and their colleagues use the ABCD2 score in subtly different ways and it functions as a 'boundary object' by both accommodating these multiple purposes, yet still successfully aiding communication between them.