Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Gen Intern Med ; 34(11): 2405-2413, 2019 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31485965

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: There is a need for new strategies to improve the success of obesity treatment within the primary care setting. OBJECTIVE: To determine if patients offered low out-of-pocket cost weight management tools achieved more weight loss compared to usual care. DESIGN: Twelve-month pragmatic clinical weight loss trial with a registry-based comparator group performed in primary care clinics of an urban safety-net hospital. PARTICIPANTS: From a large clinical registry, we randomly selected 428 patients to have the opportunity to receive the intervention. INTERVENTIONS: Medical weight management tools-partial meal replacements, recreation center vouchers, pharmacotherapy, commercial weight loss program vouchers, and a group behavioral weight loss program-for $5 or $10 monthly. Patients chose their tools, could switch tools, and could add a second tool at 6 months. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of intervention-eligible patients who achieved ≥ 5% weight loss. The main secondary outcome was the proportion of on-treatment patients who achieved ≥ 5% weight loss. KEY RESULTS: Overall, 71.3% (305 of 428) had available weight measurement data/PCP visit data to observe the primary outcome. At 12 months, 23.3% (71 of 305) of intervention-eligible participants and 15.7% (415 of 2640) of registry-based comparators had achieved 5% weight loss (p < 0.001). Of the on-treatment participants, 34.5% (39 of 113) achieved 5% weight loss. Mean percentage weight loss was - 3.15% ± 6.41% for on-treatment participants and - 0.30% ± 6.10% for comparators (p < 0.001). The initially preferred tools were meal replacements, pharmacotherapy, and recreation center passes. CONCLUSIONS: Access to a variety of low out-of-pocket cost weight management tools within primary care resulted in ≥ 5% body weight loss in approximately one quarter of low-income patients with obesity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01922934.


Assuntos
Obesidade/terapia , Programas de Redução de Peso/métodos , Adulto , Terapia Comportamental , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Provedores de Redes de Segurança/métodos , Provedores de Redes de Segurança/estatística & dados numéricos , População Urbana/estatística & dados numéricos , Redução de Peso , Programas de Redução de Peso/economia
2.
Obesity (Silver Spring) ; 26(10): 1532-1538, 2018 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30257072

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of a 1-year pragmatic obesity trial on primary care providers' (PCPs) perspectives of treatment. METHODS: PCPs from four intervention clinics (PCP-I) and five control clinics (PCP-C) completed pre- and postintervention surveys on weight-loss counseling, comfort discussing obesity treatments, and perceived effectiveness of interventions; questions were rated on 0 to 10 Likert scales. Only PCP-I received patient updates and education about obesity management. RESULTS: Eighty PCPs completed preintervention surveys (pre: 71% female, 71% physicians); 82 PCPs completed postintervention surveys (post: 66% female, 70% physicians). PCPs were most comfortable discussing exercise before and after the trial (pre PCP-C: 8.22 [1.44], mean [standard deviation (SD)]; post PCP-C: 8.37 [1.24]; P = 0.8; pre/post PCP-I: 7.88 [1.51] vs. 7.80 [1.71]; P = 0.3). PCPs were initially least comfortable discussing phentermine/topiramate extended release (ER) but developed significantly more comfort after the trial, to a greater degree among PCP-I (pre/post PCP-C: 2.86 [2.66] vs. 3.73 [2.72], P < 0.001; pre/post PCP-I: 4.00 [2.57] vs. 6.17 [2.27], P < 0.001). After the trial, both PCPs rated exercise significantly less effective for weight loss, with a greater decrease in effectiveness rations among PCP-I (pre/post PCP-C: 7.73 [1.94] vs. 6.93 [2.35], P = 0.017; pre/post PCP-I: 6.27 [2.69] vs. 5.15 [2.31], P = 0.001). Both PCPs rated phentermine (pre/post PCP-C: 5.03 [2.05] vs. 5.50 [2.12], P = 0.002; pre/post PCP-I: 5.70 [1.64] vs. 6.83 [1.18], P = 0.001) and phentermine/topiramate ER (pre/post PCP-C: 3.91 [2.33] vs. 5.47 [2.54], P < 0.001; pre/post PCP-I: 5.58 [2.21] vs. 7.02 [1.47], P < 0.001) significantly more effective after the trial, though ratings were higher among PCP-I. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs initially overvalued exercise and undervalued weight-loss medications. PCPs exposed to education and experience gave higher comfort and effectiveness ratings to weight-loss medications.


Assuntos
Obesidade/terapia , Médicos de Atenção Primária/educação , Atenção Primária à Saúde/métodos , Adulto , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Inquéritos e Questionários
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...