Weight loss can reduce the health risks associated with being overweight or obese. However, the most effective method of weight loss remains unclear. Some programs emphasize physical activity, others diet, but existing evidence is mixed as to whether these are more effective individually or in combination. We aimed to examine the clinical effectiveness of combined behavioral weight management programs (BWMPs) targeting weight loss in comparison to single component programs, using within study comparisons. We included randomized controlled trials of combined BWMPs compared with diet-only or physical activity-only programs with at least 12 months of follow-up, conducted in overweight and obese adults (body mass index ≥25). Systematic searches of nine databases were run and two reviewers extracted data independently. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted for mean difference in weight change at 3 to 6 months and 12 to 18 months using a baseline observation carried forward approach for combined BWMPs vs diet-only BWMPs and combined BWMPs vs physical activity-only BWMPs. In total, eight studies were included, representing 1,022 participants, the majority of whom were women. Six studies met the inclusion criteria for combined BWMP vs diet-only. Pooled results showed no significant difference in weight loss from baseline or at 3 to 6 months between the BWMPs and diet-only arms (–0.62 kg; 95% CI –1.67 to 0.44). However, at 12 months, a significantly greater weight-loss was detected in the combined BWMPs (–1.72 kg; 95% CI –2.80 to –0.64). Five studies met the inclusion criteria for combined BWMP vs physical activity-only. Pooled results showed significantly greater weight loss in the combined BWMPs at 3 to 6 months (–5.33 kg; 95% CI –7.61 to –3.04) and 12 to 18 months (–6.29 kg; 95% CI –7.33 to –5.25). Weight loss is similar in the short-term for diet-only and combined BWMPs but in the longer-term weight loss is increased when diet and physical activity are combined. Programs based on physical activity alone are less effective than combined BWMPs in both the short and long term.

A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of behavioural weight management programmes and examine how programme characteristics affect mean weight loss. Randomized controlled trials of multicomponent behavioural weight management programmes in overweight and obese adults were included. References were obtained through systematic searches of electronic databases (conducted November 2012), screening reference lists and contacting experts. Two reviewers extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. Thirty-seven studies, representing over 16,000 participants, were included. The pooled mean difference in weight loss at 12 months was −2.8 kg (95% confidence interval [CI] −3.6 to −2.1, P < 0.001). I2 indicated that 93% of the variability in outcome was due to differences in programme effectiveness. Meta-analysis showed no evidence that supervised physical activity sessions (mean difference 1.1 kg, 95% CI −2.65 to 4.79, P = 0.08), more frequent contact (mean difference −0.3 kg, 95% CI −0.7 to 0.2, P = 0.25) or in-person contact (mean difference 0.0 kg, 95% CI −1.8 to 1.8, P = 0.06) were related to programme effectiveness at 12 months. In meta-regression, calorie counting (−3.3 kg, 95% CI −4.6 to −2.0, P = 0.027), contact with a dietitian (−1.5 kg, 95% CI −2.9 to −0.2, P < 0.001) and use of behaviour change techniques that compare participants' behaviour with others (−1.5 kg, 95% CI −2.9 to −0.1, P = 0.032) were associated with greater weight loss. There was no evidence that other programme characteristics were associated with programme effectiveness. Most but not all behavioural weight management programmes are effective. Programmes that support participants to count calories or include a dietitian may be more effective, but the programme characteristics explaining success are mainly unknown.

This systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness trials comparing multicomponent behavioural weight management programmes with controls in overweight and obese adults set out to determine the effectiveness of these interventions implemented in routine practice. To be included, interventions must have been multicomponent, delivered by the therapists who would deliver the intervention in routine practice and in that same context, and must be widely available or feasible to implement with little additional infrastructure or staffing. Searches of electronic databases were conducted, and augmented by screening reference lists and contacting experts (November 2012). Data were extracted by two reviewers, with mean difference between intervention and control for 12-month change in weight, blood pressure, lipids and glucose calculated using baseline observation carried forward. Data were also extracted on adverse events, quality of life and mood measures. Although there were many published efficacy trials, only eight effectiveness trials met the inclusion criteria. Pooled results from five study arms providing access to commercial weight management programmes detected significant weight loss at 12 months (mean difference −2.22 kg, 95% confidence interval [CI] −2.90 to −1.54). Results from two arms of a study testing a commercial programme providing meal replacements also detected significant weight loss (mean difference −6.83 kg, 95% CI −8.39 to −5.26). In contrast, pooled results from five interventions delivered by primary care teams showed no evidence of an effect on weight (mean difference −0.45 kg, 95% CI −1.34 to 0.43). One study testing an interactive web-based intervention detected a significant effect in favour of the intervention at 12 months, but the study was judged to be at high risk of bias and the effect did not persist at 18 months. Few studies reported other outcomes, limiting comparisons between interventions. Few trials have examined the effectiveness of behavioural weight loss programmes delivered in everyday contexts. These trials suggest that commercial interventions delivered in the community are effective for achieving weight loss. There is no evidence that interventions delivered within primary care settings by generalist primary care teams trained in weight management achieve meaningful weight loss.

Guidelines suggest that very-low-energy diets (VLEDs) should be used to treat obesity only when rapid weight loss is clinically indicated because of concerns about rapid weight regain. Literature databases were searched from inception to November 2014. Randomized trials were included where the intervention included a VLED and the comparator was no intervention or an intervention that could be given in a general medical setting in adults that were overweight. Two reviewers characterized the population, intervention, control groups, outcomes and appraised quality. The primary outcome was weight change at 12 months from baseline. Compared with a behavioural programme alone, VLEDs combined with a behavioural programme achieved -3.9 kg [95% confidence interval (CI) -6.7 to -1.1] at 1 year. The difference at 24 months was -1.4 kg (95%CI -2.6 to -0.2) and at 38-60 months was -1.3 kg (95%CI -2.9 to 0.2). Nineteen per cent of the VLED group discontinued treatment prematurely compared with 20% of the comparator groups, relative risk 0.96 (0.56 to 1.66). One serious adverse event, hospitalization with cholecystitis, was reported in the VLED group and none in the comparator group. Very-low-energy diets with behavioural programmes achieve greater long-term weight loss than behavioural programmes alone, appear tolerable and lead to few adverse events suggesting they could be more widely used than current guidelines suggest.

No abstract