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.

Should we educate about the risks of medication overuse headache?

BACKGROUND: Medication-overuse headache (MOH) is caused by the regular use of medications to treat headache. There has been a lack of research into awareness of MOH. We distributed an electronic survey to undergraduate students and their contacts via social networking sites. Analgesic use, awareness of MOH, perceived change in behaviour following educational intervention about the risks of MOH and preferred terminology for MOH was evaluated. FINDINGS: 485 respondents completed the questionnaire (41% having received healthcare training). 77% were unaware of the possibility of MOH resulting from regular analgesic use for headache. Following education about MOH, 80% stated they would reduce analgesic consumption or seek medical advice. 83% indicated that over the counter analgesia should carry a warning of MOH. The preferred terminology for MOH was painkiller-induced headache. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the lack of awareness of MOH. Improved education about MOH and informative packaging of analgesics, highlighting the risks in preferred lay terminology (i.e., painkiller-induced headache), may reduce this iatrogenic morbidity and warrants further evaluation.

Using Supermarket Loyalty Card Data to Provide Personalised Advice to Help Reduce Saturated Fat Intake among Patients with Hypercholesterolemia: A Qualitative Study of Participants' Experiences.

BACKGROUND: The 'Primary Care SHOPping Intervention for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention' (PCSHOP) trial tested the effectiveness and feasibility of a behavioural intervention to reduce saturated fat in food purchases. The intervention offered feedback from data collected through a supermarket loyalty card to supplement brief advice from a nurse. This qualitative study aimed to describe participants' experiences of receiving this intervention. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured, one-to-one, telephone interviews with participants from the PCSHOP trial. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. We employed the one sheet of paper technique and a thematic analysis to develop high-level themes in NVivo software. RESULTS: Twenty-four participants were interviewed (mean age: 63 years (SD 12)). They reported that the brief advice did not provide any new information but they welcomed the sense of accountability the nurse provided. The personalised shopping feedback and healthier swap suggestions provided novel information that challenged previously held beliefs about the saturated fat content of food purchases and encouraged some positive dietary changes. However, the taste preferences of the participant or other household members were a barrier to changing food shopping behaviours. CONCLUSION: Harnessing loyalty card data is a novel and acceptable method to offering personalised dietary feedback. Yet, issues on the suitability of the healthier swap suggestions limited the extent of dietary change. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14279335. Registered 1 September 2017.

A Natural Experiment Comparing the Effectiveness of the "Healthy Eagles" Child Weight Management Intervention in School Versus Community Settings.

Behavioural weight management interventions are recommended for the treatment of obesity in children. However, the evidence for these is limited and often generated under trial conditions with White, middle-class populations. Healthy Eagles is a behavioural weight management intervention designed to treat excess weight in children. It ran in the London Borough of Croydon from 2017 to 2020 and was delivered in both school and community settings, providing a natural experiment to compare outcomes. A total of 1560 participants started the Healthy Eagles programme; 347 were in the community setting and 703 in the school setting. Data were analysed for those who completed 70% of the programme. In the school setting, there was a small but significant reduction in BMI z-score (M = -0.04, 95% CI = -0.08, -0.01) for participants above a healthy weight, especially in those with severe obesity (M = -0.09, 95% CI = -0.15, -0.03); there was no significant change in any subgroup in the community setting. Linear regression analysis showed the school setting was associated with a 0.26 (95% CI = 0.13, 0.49) greater reduction in BMI z-score than the community setting after adjusting for ethnicity, deprivation, age and gender. Across both programmes, the effect was somewhat greater in participants from a Black (African/Caribbean/Other) ethnic background (M = -0.06, 95% CI = -0.09, -0.02) and from the two most deprived quintiles (M = -0.06, 95% CI = -0.11, -0.01). Data were limited, but minimal changes were measured in nutrition and physical activity behaviours regardless of setting. This evaluation provides indirect evidence of a small but significant benefit to running weight management interventions in a school versus community setting.