Dataset Information

Association between characteristics of behavioural weight loss programmes and weight change after programme end: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine if the characteristics of behavioural weight loss programmes influence the rate of change in weight after the end of the programme.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

Trial registries, 11 electronic databases, and forward citation searching (from database inception; latest search December 2019). Randomised trials of behavioural weight loss programmes in adults with overweight or obesity, reporting outcomes at ≥12 months, including at the end of the programme and after the end of the programme.

Review methods

Studies were screened by two independent reviewers with discrepancies resolved by discussion. 5% of the studies identified in the searches met the inclusion criteria. One reviewer extracted the data and a second reviewer checked the data. Risk of bias was assessed with Cochrane's risk of bias tool (version 1). The rate of change in weight was calculated (kg/month; converted to kg/year for interpretability) after the end of the programme in the intervention versus control groups by a mixed model with a random intercept. Associations between the rate of change in weight and prespecified variables were tested.

Results

Data were analysed from 249 trials (n=59 081) with a mean length of follow-up of two years (longest 30 years). 56% of studies (n=140) had an unclear risk of bias, 21% (n=52) a low risk, and 23% (n=57) a high risk of bias. Regain in weight was faster in the intervention versus the no intervention control groups (0.12-0.32 kg/year) but the difference between groups was maintained for at least five years. Each kilogram of weight lost at the end of the programme was associated with faster regain in weight at a rate of 0.13-0.19 kg/year. Financial incentives for weight loss were associated with faster regain in weight at a rate of 1-1.5 kg/year. Compared with programmes with no meal replacements, interventions involving partial meal replacements were associated with faster regain in weight but not after adjustment for weight loss during the programme. Access to the programme outside of the study was associated with slower regain in weight. Programmes where the intensity of the interaction reduced gradually were also associated with slower regain in weight in the multivariable analysis, although the point estimate suggested that the association was small. Other characteristics did not explain the heterogeneity in regain in weight.

Conclusion

Faster regain in weight after weight loss was associated with greater initial weight loss, but greater initial weight loss was still associated with reduced weight for at least five years after the end of the programme, after which data were limited. Continued availability of the programme to participants outside of the study predicted a slower regain in weight, and provision of financial incentives predicted faster regain in weight; no other clear associations were found.

Study registration

PROSPERO CRD42018105744.

SUBMITTER: Hartmann-Boyce J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8369384 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundObesity is a cardiovascular disease risk factor. Conventional weight loss (CWL) programmes focus on weight loss, however 'health, not weight loss, focused' (HNWL) programmes concentrate on improved health and well-being, irrespective of weight loss. What are the differences in CVD risk outcomes between these programmes?AimTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effects of HNWL with CWL programmes on cardiovascular disease risk factors.MethodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ASSIA, clinical trial registers, commercial websites and reference lists for randomised controlled trials comparing the two programmes (initially searched up to August 2015 and searched updated to 5 April 2019). We used the Mantel-Haneszel fixed-effect model to pool results. Sub-group and sensitivity analyses that accounted for variations in length of follow-up, enhanced programmes and risk of bias dealt with heterogeneity.ResultsEight randomised controlled trials of 20,242 potential studies were included. Improvements in total cholesterol-HDL ratio (mean difference - 0.21 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval [- 3.91, 3.50]) and weight loss (- 0.28 kg [- 2.00, 1.44]) favoured HNWL compared to CWL programmes in the long term (53-104 week follow-up), whereas improvements in systolic (- 1.14 mmHg, [- 5.84, 3.56]) and diastolic (- 0.15 mmHg, [- 3.64, 3.34]) blood pressure favoured CWL programmes. These differences did not reach statistical significance. Statistically significant improvements in body satisfaction (- 4.30 [- 8.32, - 0.28]) and restrained eating behaviour (- 4.30 [- 6.77, - 1.83]) favoured HNWL over CWL programmes.ConclusionsWe found no long-term significant differences in improved CVD risk factors; however, body satisfaction and restrained eating behaviour improved more with HNWL compared to CWL programmes. Yet firm conclusions cannot be drawn from small studies with high losses to follow-up and data sometimes arising from a single small study.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42015019505.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Behavioural weight management programmes are effective in assisting people with overweight or obesity to lose excess body weight. Yet, many still struggle to attain their weight loss goals in such programmes. Little is understood about the factors which impact success in these programmes. Synthesising this data will allow for theory to be developed on how to improve success in such programmes. The main aim of this review will be to extract and synthesise the barriers and facilitators of successful weight loss during participation of behavioural weight loss programmes in adults living with overweight and obesity. METHODS:A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library and CINAHL will be performed from inception onwards. Studies will also be sought by contacting experts in the field, reference and website searching. Studies will be eligible if the participants are adults living with obesity (population) undertaking or recently completed behavioural weight loss programmes (intervention) with the primary focus of weight loss (outcome). The primary outcomes will be amount of weight lost and information on barriers and/or facilitators to success. The secondary outcomes will be reasons or factors related to attrition and adherence and behaviour change techniques used in programmes. Two reviewers will screen citations and full-text data. Reviewer 1 will screen all, and reviewer 2 will screen a random 50% of articles. Data extraction will be completed by reviewer 1, and 10% will be checked by the research team. Potential conflicts will be resolved through discussion. Data will be synthesised and described narratively to show the characteristics of each study, levels of success and barriers and facilitators during programme participation. A thematic approach will be taken, and themes will be coded against the levels of the socioecological model. Quantitative data will be extracted and categorised according to these themes and presented alongside the qualitative data. DISCUSSION:Our findings can be used to inform how weight loss programmes can be improved to facilitate success in those at risk of failure. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: ( PROSPERO CRD42019148158 ).

Project description:This systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness trials comparing multicomponent behavioural weight management programmes with controls in overweight and obese adults set out to determine the effectiveness of these interventions implemented in routine practice. To be included, interventions must have been multicomponent, delivered by the therapists who would deliver the intervention in routine practice and in that same context, and must be widely available or feasible to implement with little additional infrastructure or staffing. Searches of electronic databases were conducted, and augmented by screening reference lists and contacting experts (November 2012). Data were extracted by two reviewers, with mean difference between intervention and control for 12-month change in weight, blood pressure, lipids and glucose calculated using baseline observation carried forward. Data were also extracted on adverse events, quality of life and mood measures. Although there were many published efficacy trials, only eight effectiveness trials met the inclusion criteria. Pooled results from five study arms providing access to commercial weight management programmes detected significant weight loss at 12 months (mean difference -2.22 kg, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.90 to -1.54). Results from two arms of a study testing a commercial programme providing meal replacements also detected significant weight loss (mean difference -6.83 kg, 95% CI -8.39 to -5.26). In contrast, pooled results from five interventions delivered by primary care teams showed no evidence of an effect on weight (mean difference -0.45 kg, 95% CI -1.34 to 0.43). One study testing an interactive web-based intervention detected a significant effect in favour of the intervention at 12 months, but the study was judged to be at high risk of bias and the effect did not persist at 18 months. Few studies reported other outcomes, limiting comparisons between interventions. Few trials have examined the effectiveness of behavioural weight loss programmes delivered in everyday contexts. These trials suggest that commercial interventions delivered in the community are effective for achieving weight loss. There is no evidence that interventions delivered within primary care settings by generalist primary care teams trained in weight management achieve meaningful weight loss.