Group programmes for weight loss may be more effective than one-to-one sessions

BMJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. n2771
Author(s):  
Helen Saul ◽  
Deniz Gursul
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Weight Loss ◽  
Weight Management ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Lifestyle Interventions ◽  
One To One ◽  
Randomised Controlled

The study Abbott S, Smith E, Tighe B, Lycett D. Group versus one-to-one multi-component lifestyle interventions for weight management: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. J Hum Nutr Diet 2021;34:485-93. To read the full NIHR Alert, go to: https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/group-weight-loss-programmes-more-effective-than-one-to-one-sessions/

scholarly journals Effectiveness of complex multiple-risk lifestyle interventions in reducing symptoms of depression: a study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. e026842 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene Gómez-Gómez ◽  
Emma Motrico ◽  
Patricia Moreno-Peral ◽  
Alina Rigabert ◽  
Sonia Conejo-Cerón ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Depression Symptoms ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Lifestyle Interventions ◽  
Symptoms Of Depression ◽  
Multiple Risk ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionMany studies have explored the impact of lifestyle interventions on depression. However, little is known about the effectiveness of complex multiple-risk lifestyle interventions in reducing symptoms of depression. Our objective is to assess the effectiveness of complex multiple-risk lifestyle interventions in reducing depressive symptoms in the adult population by the acquisition of at least two healthy habits—healthy diet, physical activity and/or smoking cessation. For such purpose, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials will be conducted.Method and analysisMEDLINE (through Ovid and PubMed), Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, PsycINFO, OpenGrey Register (System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe) and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform will be searched for relevant articles. Additionally, a supplementary manual search will be performed using lists of references, references to expert authors and other systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses. Study selection, data extraction (target habits, country, target populations, conditions and statistical data to name a few) and assessment of the risk of bias will be performed separately by two independent researchers. The primary outcome measure will be the reduction of depression symptoms, as measured by validated instruments. We will calculate pooled standardised mean differences and 95% CIs using random-effect models. Heterogeneity, sensitivity and publication bias will be assessed, and sub-group analysis will be performed. Heterogeneity will be explored by random-effects meta-regression analysis.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this study. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be presented in relevant conferences and published in a peer-review journal. The findings of this study could have important clinical and scientific implications for the improvement of symptoms of depression.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018100253; Pre-results.

scholarly journals A systematic review of inequalities in the uptake of, adherence to and effectiveness of behavioural weight management interventions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Birch ◽  
Rebecca Jones ◽  
Julia Mueller ◽  
Matthew McDonald ◽  
Rebecca Richards ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Weight Management ◽  
Health Inequalities ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Management Interventions ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background: It has been suggested that interventions focusing on individual behaviour change, such as behavioural weight management interventions, may exacerbate health inequalities. These intervention-generated inequalities may occur at different stages, including intervention uptake, adherence and effectiveness. We conducted a systematic review to synthesise evidence on how different measures of inequality moderate the uptake of, adherence to and effectiveness of behavioural weight management interventions in adults. Methods: We updated a previous systematic literature review from the US Preventive Services Taskforce to identify trials of behavioural weight management interventions in adults that could be conducted in or recruited from primary care. Medline, Cochrane database (CENTRAL) and PsycINFO were searched. Only randomised controlled trials and cluster-randomised controlled trials were included. Two investigators independently screened articles for eligibility and conducted risk of bias assessment. We curated publication families for eligible trials. The PROGRESS-Plus acronym (place of residence, race/ethnicity, occupation, gender, religion, education, socioeconomic status, social capital, plus other discriminating factors) was used to consider a comprehensive range of health inequalities. Data on trial uptake, intervention adherence, weight change, and PROGRESS-Plus related-data were extracted. Results: Data extraction in currently underway. A total of 108 studies are included in the review. Data will be synthesised narratively and through the use of Harvest Plots. A Harvest plot for each PROGRESS-Plus criterion will be presented, showing whether each trial found a negative, positive or no health inequality gradient. We will also identify potential sources of unpublished original research data on these factors which can be synthesised through a future individual participant data meta- analysis. Conclusions and implications: The review findings will contribute towards the consideration of intervention-generated inequalities by researchers, policy makers and healthcare and public health practitioners. Authors of trials included in the completed systematic review may be invited to collaborate on a future IPD meta-analysis. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020173242

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document