Cargando…
Does weight management research for adults with severe obesity represent them? Analysis of systematic review data
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine the extent to which current evidence from long-term randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of weight management is generalisable and applicable to underserved adult groups with obesity (body mass index (BMI) ≥35 kg/m(2)). METHODS: Descriptive analysis of 131 RC...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9157335/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35641006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054459 |
_version_ | 1784718617016795136 |
---|---|
author | Robertson, Clare Aceves-Martins, Magaly Cruickshank, Moira Imamura, Mari Avenell, Alison |
author_facet | Robertson, Clare Aceves-Martins, Magaly Cruickshank, Moira Imamura, Mari Avenell, Alison |
author_sort | Robertson, Clare |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine the extent to which current evidence from long-term randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of weight management is generalisable and applicable to underserved adult groups with obesity (body mass index (BMI) ≥35 kg/m(2)). METHODS: Descriptive analysis of 131 RCTs, published after 1990–May 2017 with ≥1 year of follow-up, included in a systematic review of long-term weight management interventions for adults with BMI ≥35 kg/m(2) (the REBALANCE Project). Studies were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, SCI, CENTRAL and from hand searching. Reporting of trial inclusion and exclusion criteria, trial recruitment strategies, baseline characteristics and outcomes were analysed using a predefined list of characteristics informed by the PROGRESS (Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital)-Plus framework and the UK Equality Act 2010. RESULTS: Few (6.1%) trials reported adapting recruitment to appeal to underserved groups. 10.0% reported culturally adapting their trial materials. Only 6.1% of trials gave any justification for their exclusion criteria, yet over half excluded participation for age or mental health reasons. Just over half (58%) of the trials reported participants’ race or ethnicity, and one-fifth reported socioeconomic status. Where outcomes were reported for underserved groups, the most common analysis was by sex (47.3%), followed by race or ethnicity (16.8%). 3.1% of trials reported outcomes according to socioeconomic status. DISCUSSION: Although we were limited by poor trial reporting, our results indicate inadequate representation of people most at risk of obesity. Guidance for considering underserved groups may improve the appropriateness of research and inform greater engagement with health and social care services. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (project number: 15/09/04). PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016040190. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9157335 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-91573352022-06-16 Does weight management research for adults with severe obesity represent them? Analysis of systematic review data Robertson, Clare Aceves-Martins, Magaly Cruickshank, Moira Imamura, Mari Avenell, Alison BMJ Open Health Services Research OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine the extent to which current evidence from long-term randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of weight management is generalisable and applicable to underserved adult groups with obesity (body mass index (BMI) ≥35 kg/m(2)). METHODS: Descriptive analysis of 131 RCTs, published after 1990–May 2017 with ≥1 year of follow-up, included in a systematic review of long-term weight management interventions for adults with BMI ≥35 kg/m(2) (the REBALANCE Project). Studies were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, SCI, CENTRAL and from hand searching. Reporting of trial inclusion and exclusion criteria, trial recruitment strategies, baseline characteristics and outcomes were analysed using a predefined list of characteristics informed by the PROGRESS (Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital)-Plus framework and the UK Equality Act 2010. RESULTS: Few (6.1%) trials reported adapting recruitment to appeal to underserved groups. 10.0% reported culturally adapting their trial materials. Only 6.1% of trials gave any justification for their exclusion criteria, yet over half excluded participation for age or mental health reasons. Just over half (58%) of the trials reported participants’ race or ethnicity, and one-fifth reported socioeconomic status. Where outcomes were reported for underserved groups, the most common analysis was by sex (47.3%), followed by race or ethnicity (16.8%). 3.1% of trials reported outcomes according to socioeconomic status. DISCUSSION: Although we were limited by poor trial reporting, our results indicate inadequate representation of people most at risk of obesity. Guidance for considering underserved groups may improve the appropriateness of research and inform greater engagement with health and social care services. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (project number: 15/09/04). PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016040190. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-05-30 /pmc/articles/PMC9157335/ /pubmed/35641006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054459 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Health Services Research Robertson, Clare Aceves-Martins, Magaly Cruickshank, Moira Imamura, Mari Avenell, Alison Does weight management research for adults with severe obesity represent them? Analysis of systematic review data |
title | Does weight management research for adults with severe obesity represent them? Analysis of systematic review data |
title_full | Does weight management research for adults with severe obesity represent them? Analysis of systematic review data |
title_fullStr | Does weight management research for adults with severe obesity represent them? Analysis of systematic review data |
title_full_unstemmed | Does weight management research for adults with severe obesity represent them? Analysis of systematic review data |
title_short | Does weight management research for adults with severe obesity represent them? Analysis of systematic review data |
title_sort | does weight management research for adults with severe obesity represent them? analysis of systematic review data |
topic | Health Services Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9157335/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35641006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054459 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT robertsonclare doesweightmanagementresearchforadultswithsevereobesityrepresentthemanalysisofsystematicreviewdata AT acevesmartinsmagaly doesweightmanagementresearchforadultswithsevereobesityrepresentthemanalysisofsystematicreviewdata AT cruickshankmoira doesweightmanagementresearchforadultswithsevereobesityrepresentthemanalysisofsystematicreviewdata AT imamuramari doesweightmanagementresearchforadultswithsevereobesityrepresentthemanalysisofsystematicreviewdata AT avenellalison doesweightmanagementresearchforadultswithsevereobesityrepresentthemanalysisofsystematicreviewdata |