2014
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.14173
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Behavioral Treatment of Obesity in Patients Encountered in Primary Care Settings

Abstract: IMPORTANCE In 2011, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) approved intensive behavioral weight loss counseling (i.e., approximately 14, 10–15 minute, face-to-face sessions in 6 months) for obese beneficiaries in primary care settings, when delivered by physicians and other CMS-defined primary care practitioners (PCPs). OBJECTIVE To conduct a systematic review of behavioral counseling for overweight/obese patients recruited from primary care, as delivered by PCPs working alone or with trained i… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

8
182
2
6

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 236 publications
(206 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
(191 reference statements)
8
182
2
6
Order By: Relevance
“…5,8,11 In contrast, we found that for a behavioural internet intervention, such as POWeR+, very restricted face-to-face and remote follow-up is effective (median of four contacts, comprising 6-monthly weighing, brief telephone calls and e-mails). The weight loss achieved with POWeR+ compares favourably with other internet-based interventions, which on average 10 (albeit with high heterogeneity) have led to only short-term weight loss, of < 1 kg compared with no treatment controls or < 2 kg if combined with face-to-face support (in a review based mainly on studies of motivated volunteer samples).…”
Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…5,8,11 In contrast, we found that for a behavioural internet intervention, such as POWeR+, very restricted face-to-face and remote follow-up is effective (median of four contacts, comprising 6-monthly weighing, brief telephone calls and e-mails). The weight loss achieved with POWeR+ compares favourably with other internet-based interventions, which on average 10 (albeit with high heterogeneity) have led to only short-term weight loss, of < 1 kg compared with no treatment controls or < 2 kg if combined with face-to-face support (in a review based mainly on studies of motivated volunteer samples).…”
Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…This is in contrast to presently available non-surgical interventions for obesity, which generally have only small and generally short-lived effects. 29,96,97 Based on these results, the wider use of bariatric surgery may be justified in the management of people with severe and morbid obesity. A major concern remains that the social and environmental drivers of the increase in morbid obesity should not remain unchecked.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…95 In practice, access to weight-management interventions may be limited 28 and systematic reviews show that weight-management interventions have only small and poorly maintained effects on body weight. 29,96 In order to understand the frequency with which reductions in BMI may occur in a large population, this part of the study aimed to estimate the probability of an obese individual attaining normal body weight, or a reduction of 5% in body weight in the absence of bariatric surgery. The results of this study have been published open access in the American Journal of Public Health (© American Public Health Association).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One is the number of face-to-face sessions involved. Recent reviews been inconsistent on whether or not number of sessions or hours of personal contact is an important determinant of success in changing risks for diabetes onset or cardiovascular disease, [197][198][199][200][201] but the most effective programmes seem to have more than three contact sessions. This is a dilemma that is yet to be resolved in debates, for example about national diabetes prevention strategies, because interventions based on minimal patient contact are largely ineffective; however, more intensive contact is unfeasible at the scale required by the population burden and is associated with poor rates of take-up.…”
Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%