Standard baseline data collections in obesity management clinics: A Delphi study with recommendations from an expert panel

Essential dataset features in a successful obesity registry: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of obesity and the diversity of available treatments makes the development of a national obesity registry desirable. To do this, it is essential to design a minimal dataset to meet the needs of a registry. This review aims to identify the essential elements of a successful obesity registry.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis recommendations. Google Scholar, Scopus and PubMed databases and Google sites were searched to identify articles containing obesity or overweight registries or datasets of obesity. We included English articles up to January 2023.

RESULTS

A total of 82 articles were identified. Data collection of all registries was carried out via a web-based system. According to the included datasets, the important features were as follows: demographics, anthropometrics, medical history, lifestyle assessment, nutritional assessment, weight history, clinical information, medication history, family medical history, prenatal history, quality-of-life assessment and eating disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the essential features in the obesity registry dataset were demographics, anthropometrics, medical history, lifestyle assessment, nutritional assessment, weight history and clinical analysis items.

Enablers and barriers to implementing obesity assessments in clinical practice: a rapid mixed-methods systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aims to improve our knowledge of enablers and barriers to implementing obesity-related anthropometric assessments in clinical practice.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase and CINAHL to November 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Quantitative studies that reported patient factors associated with obesity assessments in clinical practice (general practice or primary care); and qualitative studies that reported views of healthcare professionals about enablers and barriers to their implementation.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We used random-effects meta-analysis to pool ratios for categorical predictors reported in ≥3 studies expressed as pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI, applied inverse variance weights, and investigated statistical heterogeneity (I²), publication bias (Egger's test), and sensitivity analyses. We used reflexive thematic analysis for qualitative data and applied a convergent integrated approach to synthesis.

RESULTS

We reviewed 22 quantitative (observational) and 3 qualitative studies published between 2004 and 2020. All had ≥50% of the quality items for risk of bias assessments. Obesity assessment in clinical practice was positively associated with patient factors: female sex (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.50, I² 99.8%, mostly UK/USA), socioeconomic deprivation (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.24, I² 73.9%, UK studies), non-white race/ethnicity (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.57, I² 99.6%) and comorbidities (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.79, I² 99.6%, consistent across most countries). Obesity assessment was also most common in the heaviest body mass index group (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.45, I² 99.6%). Views of healthcare professionals were positive about obesity assessments when linked to patient health (convergent with meta-analysis for comorbidities) and if part of routine practice, but negative about their role, training, time, resources and incentives in the healthcare system.

CONCLUSIONS

Our evidence synthesis revealed several important enablers and barriers to obesity assessments that should inform healthcare professionals and relevant stakeholders to encourage adherence to clinical practice guideline recommendations.

Comparing the predictive ability of the Edmonton Obesity Staging System with the body mass index for use of health services and pharmacotherapies in Australian adults: A nationally representative cross-sectional study

We assessed the value of the Edmonton Obesity Staging System (EOSS) compared with the body mass index (BMI) for determining associations with use of health services and pharmacotherapies in a nationally representative sample of participants in the 2011-2013 Australian Health Survey. A subsample of participants aged 18 years or over, with at least overweight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m² ) or central obesity (waist measurement of ≥102 cm for men; ≥88 cm for women), and who had provided physical measurements (n = 9730) were selected for analysis. For statistical significance of each predictor, we used logistic regression for model comparisons with the BMI and EOSS separately, and adjusted for covariates. For relative explanatory ability, we used the Nagelkerke pseudo R² , receiver operating characteristic curve, and area under curve statistic. The EOSS was significantly better than the BMI for predicting polypharmacy and most of the health service use variables. Conversely, the BMI was significantly better than the EOSS for predicting having discussed lifestyle changes relevant to weight loss with the primary care physician. Clinicians, health care professionals, consumers, and policy makers should consider the EOSS a more accurate predictor of polypharmacy and health service use than the BMI in adults with overweight or obesity.

Core outcome set for behavioural weight management interventions for adults with overweight and obesity: Standardised reporting of lifestyle weight management interventions to aid evaluation (STAR-LITE)

Behavioural weight management interventions in research studies and clinical practice differ in length, advice, frequency of meetings, staff, and cost. Few real-world programmes have published patient outcomes and those that have used different ways of reporting information, making it impossible to compare interventions and develop the evidence base. To address this issue, we have developed a core outcome set for behavioural weight management intervention programmes for adults with overweight and obesity. Outcomes were identified via systematic review of the literature. A representative expert group was formed comprising people with experience of adult weight management services. An online Delphi process was employed to reach consensus as to which outcomes should be measured and reported and which definitions/instruments should be utilised. The expert group identified eight core outcomes and 12 core processes for reporting by weight management services. Eleven outcomes and five processes were identified as optional. The most appropriate definitions/instruments for measuring each outcome/process were also agreed. Our core outcome set will ensure consistency of reporting. This will allow behavioural weight management interventions to be compared, revealing which interventions work best for which members of the population and helping inform development of adult behavioural weight management interventions.