A randomised controlled feasibility study of food-related computerised attention training versus mindfulness training and waiting-list control for adults with overweight or obesity: the FOCUS study

BACKGROUND

In a feasibility randomised controlled trial in people with overweight/obesity with and without binge eating disorder (BED) symptoms, we assessed eight weekly sessions of attention bias modification training (ABMT) and mindfulness training (MT) versus waiting list (WL) and explored potential mechanisms.

METHODS

45 participants were randomly allocated to one of three trial arms. Primary outcomes were recruitment, retention and treatment adherence rates. Secondary outcomes included measures of eating behaviour, mood, attention and treatment acceptability. Assessments were conducted at baseline, post-intervention (week 8), and follow-up (week 12).

RESULTS

Participant retention at follow-up was 84.5% across groups. Session completion rates in the laboratory were 87% for ABMT and 94% for MT, but home practice was much poorer for ABMT. Changes in BMI and body composition were small between groups and there was a medium size BMI reduction in the MT group at follow-up. Effect sizes of eating disorder symptom changes were not greater for either intervention group compared to WL, but favoured ABMT compared to MT. Hedonic hunger and mindful eating scores favoured MT compared to ABMT and WL. ABMT reduced attention biases towards high-calorie food cues, which correlated with lower objective binge eating days at post-intervention. No significant changes were observed in the MT, or WL conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Both ABMT and MT have potential value as adjuncts in the treatment of obesity and BED, and a larger clinical trial appears feasible and indicated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN15745838. Registered on 22 May 2018.

Beyond interferon side effects: What residual barriers exist to DAA hepatitis C treatment for people who inject drugs?

Recent advances in the efficacy and tolerability of hepatitis C treatments and the introduction of a universal access scheme for the new Direct Acting Antiviral (DAA) therapies in March 2016, has resulted in a rapid increase in the uptake of hepatitis C treatment in Australia. Despite these positive developments, recent data suggest a plateauing of treatment numbers, indicating that more work may need to be done to identify and address ongoing barriers to hepatitis C treatment access and uptake. This paper aims to contribute to our understanding of the ongoing barriers to DAA therapies, with a focus on people who inject drugs. The paper draws on participant interview data from a qualitative research study based on a participatory research design that included a peer researcher with direct experience of both hepatitis C DAA treatment and injecting drug use at all stages of the research process. The study’s findings show that residual barriers to DAA treatment exist at personal, provider and system levels and include poor venous access, DAA treatments not considered ‘core-business’ by opioid substitution treatment (OST) providers, and patients having to manage multiple health and social priorities that interfere with keeping medical appointments such as childcare and poor access to transport services. Further, efforts to increase access to and uptake of DAA hepatitis C treatment over time will require a focus on reducing stigma and discrimination towards people who inject drugs as this remains as a major barrier to care for many people.