Technology-Assisted Weight Loss Interventions in Primary Care: A Systematic Review
- 1.8k Downloads
The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening for and treating obesity. However, there are many barriers to successfully treating obesity in primary care (PC). Technology-assisted weight loss interventions offer novel ways of improving treatment, but trials are overwhelmingly conducted outside of PC and may not translate well into this setting. We conducted a systematic review of technology-assisted weight loss interventions specifically tested in PC settings.
We searched the literature from January 2000 to March 2014. Inclusion criteria: (1) Randomized controlled trial; (2) trials that utilized the Internet, personal computer, and/or mobile device; and (3) occurred in an ambulatory PC setting. We applied the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) and Delphi criteria to assess bias and the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) criteria to assess pragmatism (whether trials occurred in the real world versus under ideal circumstances). Given heterogeneity, results were not pooled quantitatively.
Sixteen trials met inclusion criteria. Twelve (75 %) interventions achieved weight loss (range: 0.08 kg – 5.4 kg) compared to controls, while 5–45 % of patients lost at least 5 % of baseline weight. Trial duration and attrition ranged from 3–36 months and 6–80 %, respectively. Ten (63 %) studies reported results after at least 1 year of follow-up. Interventions used various forms of personnel, technology modalities, and behavior change elements; trials most frequently utilized medical doctors (MDs) (44 %), web-based applications (63 %), and self-monitoring (81 %), respectively. Interventions that included clinician-guiding software or feedback from personnel appeared to promote more weight loss than fully automated interventions. Only two (13 %) studies used publically available technologies. Many studies had fair pragmatism scores (mean: 2.8/4), despite occurring in primary care.
Compared to usual care, technology-assisted interventions in the PC setting help patients achieve weight loss, offering evidence-based options to PC providers. However, best practices remain undetermined. Despite occurring in PC, studies often fall short in utilizing pragmatic methodology and rarely provide publically available technology. Longitudinal, pragmatic, interdisciplinary, and open-source interventions are needed.
KEY WORDSweight loss technology primary care obesity review
We would like to thank Adina Kalet, MD, MPH for her feedback and editing of the manuscript.
Veteran Affairs Career Development Award
Levine D, Savarimuthu S, Nicholson J, Jay M. Technology-assisted weight loss interventions in primary care: A systematic review. Poster Presentation, Society of General Internal Medicine; Denver, CO 2013.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they do not have any conflicts of interest.
- 2.Oster G, Edelsberg J, O’Sullivan AK, Thompson D. The clinical and economic burden of obesity in a managed care setting. Am J Manage Care. 2000;6(6):681–689.Google Scholar
- 7.Kushner RF. Roadmaps for clinical practice: case studies in disease prevention and health promotion—assessment and management of adult obesity: a primer for physicians. Chicago: American Medical Association; 2003.Google Scholar
- 8.Bray GA, Wilson JF. In the clinic. Obesity. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(7):ITC4–1–15.Google Scholar
- 9.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Obesity: guidance on the prevention, identification, assessment and management of overweight and obesity in adults and childen. NICE clinical guideline no. 43. 2006. Available at http://www.nice.org.uk/CG43. Accessed 7/17/14.
- 12.Schappert SM, Rechtsteiner EA. Ambulatory medical care utilization estimates for 2007. Vital Health Stat. 2011;13(169):1–38.Google Scholar
- 47.http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42013003998. Accessed 7/17/14.
- 51.Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.0.2 [updated September 2009]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2009.Google Scholar
- 52.US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for obesity in adults: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2003;139(11):930–2.Google Scholar
- 55.Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Review Group. Risk of bias. 2009. Available at: http://epoc.cochrane.org/sites/epoc.cochrane.org/files/uploads/Suggested%20risk%20of%20bias%20criteria%20for%20EPOC%20reviews.pdf. Accessed 7/17/14.
- 68.Nanchahal K, Power T, Holdsworth E, et al. A pragmatic randomised controlled trial in primary care of the Camden Weight Loss (CAMWEL) programme. BMJ Open. 2012;2(3).Google Scholar