Views of the public about Snacktivity™: a small changes approach to promoting physical activity and reducing sedentary behaviour.

BACKGROUND: Many people do not meet the recommended health guidance of participation in a minimum of 150-300 min of moderate intensity physical activity per week, often promoted as at least 30 min of physical activity on 5 days of the week. This is concerning and highlights the importance of finding innovative ways to help people to be physically active each day. Snacktivity™ is a novel approach that aims to encourage people to do small, 2-5 min bouts of physical activity 'snacks' throughout the whole day, such that they achieve at least 150 min of moderate intensity activity per week. However, before it can be recommended, there is a need to explore whether the concept is acceptable to the public. METHODS: A survey to assess the views of the public about Snacktivity™ was distributed to adult patients registered at six general practices in the West Midlands, UK and to health care employees in the same region. RESULTS: A total of 5989 surveys were sent to patients, of which 558 were returned (9.3%). A further 166 surveys were completed by health care employees. A total of 85% of respondents liked the Snacktivity™ concept. The flexibility of the approach was highly rated. A high proportion of participants (61%) reported that the ability to self-monitor their behaviour would help them to do Snacktivity™ throughout their day. Physically inactive participants perceived that Snacktivity™ would help to increase their physical activity, more than those who were physically active (OR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.25-0.67). Approximately 90% of respondents perceived that Snacktivity™ was easy to do on a non-working day compared to 60% on a working day. Aerobic activity 'snacks' were preferred to those which were strength based. CONCLUSIONS: The Snacktivity™ approach to promoting physical activity was viewed positively by the public and interventions to test the merits of such an approach now need to be developed and tested in a variety of everyday contexts.

Experiences and perceptions of dietitians for obesity management: a general practice qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Multi-component lifestyle interventions are the first line treatment for obesity. Dietitians are ideally placed healthcare professionals to deliver such interventions. However, only a small proportion of patients with obesity are referred by general practice to dietitians, and the reasons for this are not clear. The present study aimed to explore general practice healthcare professionals' (GPHCPs) experiences and perceptions of dietitians in the context of obesity management. METHODS: A convenience sample of GPHCPs practicing in the UK was recruited via a targeted social media strategy, using virtual snowball sampling. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews and analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: In total, 20 participants were interviewed (11 general practice nurses and nine general practitioners). Experiences of referring patients with obesity for dietetic intervention resulted in two main themes: (i) access barriers and (ii) the dietetic consult experience. Three themes emerged from participants' perceptions of a role for general practice dietitians: (i) utilising dietetic expertise; (ii) access to dietitian; and (iii) time. Participants experienced barriers to accessing dietitians for obesity management and felt that having a dietitian working within their general practice team would help address this. Having a dietitian embedded within their general practice team was perceived to have the potential to alleviate GPHCPs' clinical time pressures, offer opportunities for upskilling, and may improve patient engagement with obesity management. CONCLUSIONS: GPHCPs perceived that embedding a dietitian within their general practice team would be valuable and beneficial for obesity management. Our findings provide support for the funding of general practice dietitian roles in the UK.

'This is silent murder' - are we medicalising human distress caused by the reality of life as an asylum seeker in the UK?

The number of displaced people, including asylum seekers and refugees, in the UK continues to rise. This article highlights findings from two participatory community listening exercises on the topic of health of displaced people.

"Is it time to throw out the weighing scales?" Implicit weight bias among healthcare professionals working in bariatric surgery services and their attitude towards non-weight focused approaches.

Background: People living with overweight or obesity (PLwO) can be stigmatised by healthcare professionals (HCPs). Reducing focus on weight is a proposed strategy to provide less threatening healthcare experiences. Given the lack of research on weight bias within obesity services, this study aimed to explore implicit bias among obesity specialist HCPs and explore views on non-weight focused approaches. Methods: Obesity specialist HCPs were invited to a webinar, "An exploration of non-weight focused approaches within bariatric services", held in October 2021. Implicit weight bias was examined using the BiasProof mobile device test, based on the Implicit Association Test. Poll data was analysed descriptively, and qualitative data was analysed using framework analysis. Findings: 82 of the 113 HCPs who attended the webinar consented to contribute data to the study. Over half (51%) had an implicit weight bias against PLwO. Most (90%) agreed/strongly agreed that obesity services are too weight focused and that patients should not be weighed at every appointment (86%). Perceived benefits of taking a non-weight focused approach included patient-led care, reducing stigma and supporting patient wellbeing, while perceived barriers included loss of objectivity, inducing risk and difficulty demonstrating effectiveness. Interpretation: Our findings indicate that half of obesity specialists HCPs in our sample of 82 providers, who are primarily dieticians and psychologists, have an implicit weight bias against PLwO. HCPs feel that a weight-focused approach within services was a barrier to patient care, but that there is a lack of alternative non-weight focused measures. Further research is needed into substitute outcome measures for clinical practice, also seeking the views of PLwO, and into interventions to address implicit weight bias. Funding: Johnson & Johnson funded the BiasProof licence and publication open access charge.

Feasibility and acceptability of a brief routine weight management intervention for postnatal women embedded within the national child immunisation programme in primary care: randomised controlled cluster feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of obesity in women continues to rise and pregnancy is a high-risk time for excessive weight gain. The period after childbirth represents an opportunity to offer women support to manage their weight. The primary aim here was to investigate the acceptability and feasibility of delivering a self-management intervention to postnatal women to support weight loss, embedded within the national child immunisation programme. METHODS: The research involved a randomised controlled cluster feasibility trial. Data were collected at baseline and 3 months later. Twenty-eight postnatal women living with overweight or obesity were recruited via Birmingham Women Hospital or general practices. Babies are routinely immunised at 2, 3 and 4 months of age; the intervention was embedded within these appointments. The intervention involved brief motivation/support by practice nurses to encourage participants to make healthier lifestyle choices through self-monitoring of weight and signposting to an online weight management programme, when they attended their practice to have their child immunised. The role of the nurse was to provide external accountability for weight loss. Participants were asked to weigh themselves weekly and record this on a record card or using the online programme. The weight goal was for participants to lose 0.5 to 1 kg per week. Usual care received a healthy lifestyle leaflet. The primary outcome was the feasibility of a phase III trial to test the subsequent effectiveness of the intervention, as assessed against three stop-go traffic light criteria (recruitment, adherence to regular self-weighing and registration with an online weight management programme). RESULTS: The traffic light stop-go criteria results were red for recruitment (28/80, 35% of target), amber for registration with the online weight loss programme (9/16, 56%) and green for adherence to weekly self-weighing (10/16, 63%). Nurses delivered the intervention with high fidelity. DISCUSSION: Whilst participants and nurses followed the trial protocol well and adherence to self-weighing was acceptable, recruitment was challenging and there is scope to improve engagement with the online weight management programme component of the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 12209332 . Registration date is 04/12/18.

'The rollercoaster of follow-up care' after bariatric surgery: a rapid review and qualitative synthesis.

Benefits of bariatric surgery for obesity related comorbidities are well established. However, in the longer term, patients can become vulnerable to procedure specific problems, experience weight regain and continue to need monitoring and management of comorbidities. Effective longer term follow-up is vital due to these complex needs post-surgery. Current guidance recommends annual long-term follow-up after bariatric surgery. However, attendance can be low, and failure to attend is associated with poorer outcomes. Understanding patients' experiences and needs is central to the delivery of effective care. This rapid review has synthesized the current qualitative literature on patient experiences of healthcare professional (HCP) led follow-up from 12 months after bariatric surgery. A recurring theme was the need for more and extended follow-up care, particularly psychological support. Enablers to attending follow-up care were patient self-efficacy as well as HCP factors such as a non-judgemental attitude, knowledge and continuity of care. Barriers included unrealistic patient expectations and perceived lack of HCP expertise. Some preferences were expressed including patient initiated access to HCPs and more information preoperatively to prepare for potential post-surgery issues. Insights gained from this work will help identify areas for improvement to care in order to optimize longer term outcomes.

Clinical effectiveness of very-low-energy diets in the management of weight loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Guidelines suggest that very-low-energy diets (VLEDs) should be used to treat obesity only when rapid weight loss is clinically indicated because of concerns about rapid weight regain. Literature databases were searched from inception to November 2014. Randomized trials were included where the intervention included a VLED and the comparator was no intervention or an intervention that could be given in a general medical setting in adults that were overweight. Two reviewers characterized the population, intervention, control groups, outcomes and appraised quality. The primary outcome was weight change at 12 months from baseline. Compared with a behavioural programme alone, VLEDs combined with a behavioural programme achieved -3.9 kg [95% confidence interval (CI) -6.7 to -1.1] at 1 year. The difference at 24 months was -1.4 kg (95%CI -2.6 to -0.2) and at 38-60 months was -1.3 kg (95%CI -2.9 to 0.2). Nineteen per cent of the VLED group discontinued treatment prematurely compared with 20% of the comparator groups, relative risk 0.96 (0.56 to 1.66). One serious adverse event, hospitalization with cholecystitis, was reported in the VLED group and none in the comparator group. Very-low-energy diets with behavioural programmes achieve greater long-term weight loss than behavioural programmes alone, appear tolerable and lead to few adverse events suggesting they could be more widely used than current guidelines suggest.