Are there inequalities in the attendance at and effectiveness of behavioural weight management interventions for adults in the UK? An individual participant data meta-analysis.

BMJ public health Pub Date : 2025-08-07 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjph-2024-001382
Jack M Birch, Julia Mueller, Sarah Damery, Stephen J Sharp, Rebecca A Jones, Michael P Kelly, Annie S Anderson, Nerys Astbury, Paul Aveyard, Rebecca J Beeken, Angela Craigie, Colin Greaves, Susan Jebb, Alex McConnachie, Kiran Nanchahal, Beth Stuart, Martin White, Simon J Griffin, Amy L Ahern
{"title":"Are there inequalities in the attendance at and effectiveness of behavioural weight management interventions for adults in the UK? An individual participant data meta-analysis.","authors":"Jack M Birch, Julia Mueller, Sarah Damery, Stephen J Sharp, Rebecca A Jones, Michael P Kelly, Annie S Anderson, Nerys Astbury, Paul Aveyard, Rebecca J Beeken, Angela Craigie, Colin Greaves, Susan Jebb, Alex McConnachie, Kiran Nanchahal, Beth Stuart, Martin White, Simon J Griffin, Amy L Ahern","doi":"10.1136/bmjph-2024-001382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Interventions for obesity that require individual behaviour change, such as behavioural weight management interventions, may contribute to health inequalities. We explored if there was evidence of inequalities in the attendance at and effectiveness of behavioural weight management interventions in adults.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Two-stage individual participant data meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Eligible studies were extracted from a previous systematic review and an updated search was completed on PubMed.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>UK-based randomised controlled trials of behavioural weight management interventions suitable for use in primary care, published until 31 December 2021.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>Multivariable regression analyses were conducted with weight at 12-month follow-up as the primary outcome and included an interaction between inequality characteristic and trial arm (control or intervention). Each model was adjusted for baseline weight, age and gender. Estimated interactions were combined across trials using a random-effects meta-analysis. Intervention attendance was defined as number of in-person sessions attended. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's RoB 2 tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 13/16 eligible weight loss trials were analysed (complete case data n=5531 participants). The effect of the intervention on weight at 12 months was greater in male participants (-2.58 kg (95% CI -3.52 to 1.64)) than female participants (-1.71 kg (95% CI -2.79 to -0.63); p value for interaction=0.02, tau<sup>2</sup>=0) and greater for participants of white ethnicity (-2.74 kg (95% CI -4.30 to -1.19)), than those from an ethnic minority background (0.03 kg (95% CI -1.29 to 1.35); p interaction=0.04, tau<sup>2</sup>=0). Age, education, occupation, place of residence and household income did not significantly moderate effectiveness. We did not find evidence of inequalities in intervention attendance by ethnicity, occupation, gender/sex, area-level socioeconomic deprivation or age.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Behavioural weight management interventions had smaller effects in people from ethnic minority backgrounds and larger effects in men. There was no evidence of other differences in intervention effectiveness or adherence. This is the first synthesis study to access individual participant data and quantitatively assess inequalities in these interventions. Future research should further explore reasons for differences in outcomes and consider how to prevent behavioural weight management interventions from potentially exacerbating health inequalities.</p>","PeriodicalId":101362,"journal":{"name":"BMJ public health","volume":"3 2","pages":"e001382"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12336588/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ public health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjph-2024-001382","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Interventions for obesity that require individual behaviour change, such as behavioural weight management interventions, may contribute to health inequalities. We explored if there was evidence of inequalities in the attendance at and effectiveness of behavioural weight management interventions in adults.

Design: Two-stage individual participant data meta-analysis.

Data sources: Eligible studies were extracted from a previous systematic review and an updated search was completed on PubMed.

Eligibility criteria: UK-based randomised controlled trials of behavioural weight management interventions suitable for use in primary care, published until 31 December 2021.

Data extraction and synthesis: Multivariable regression analyses were conducted with weight at 12-month follow-up as the primary outcome and included an interaction between inequality characteristic and trial arm (control or intervention). Each model was adjusted for baseline weight, age and gender. Estimated interactions were combined across trials using a random-effects meta-analysis. Intervention attendance was defined as number of in-person sessions attended. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's RoB 2 tool.

Results: Data from 13/16 eligible weight loss trials were analysed (complete case data n=5531 participants). The effect of the intervention on weight at 12 months was greater in male participants (-2.58 kg (95% CI -3.52 to 1.64)) than female participants (-1.71 kg (95% CI -2.79 to -0.63); p value for interaction=0.02, tau2=0) and greater for participants of white ethnicity (-2.74 kg (95% CI -4.30 to -1.19)), than those from an ethnic minority background (0.03 kg (95% CI -1.29 to 1.35); p interaction=0.04, tau2=0). Age, education, occupation, place of residence and household income did not significantly moderate effectiveness. We did not find evidence of inequalities in intervention attendance by ethnicity, occupation, gender/sex, area-level socioeconomic deprivation or age.

Conclusions: Behavioural weight management interventions had smaller effects in people from ethnic minority backgrounds and larger effects in men. There was no evidence of other differences in intervention effectiveness or adherence. This is the first synthesis study to access individual participant data and quantitatively assess inequalities in these interventions. Future research should further explore reasons for differences in outcomes and consider how to prevent behavioural weight management interventions from potentially exacerbating health inequalities.

英国成年人的行为体重管理干预的出勤率和有效性是否存在不平等?个体参与者数据荟萃分析。
目标:需要改变个人行为的肥胖干预措施,如行为体重管理干预措施,可能导致健康不平等。我们探讨了是否有证据表明,在成人中,行为体重管理干预的出勤率和有效性存在不平等。设计:两阶段个体参与者数据荟萃分析。数据来源:符合条件的研究是从以前的系统综述中提取出来的,并在PubMed上完成了更新的搜索。资格标准:适用于初级保健的行为体重管理干预措施的英国随机对照试验,发表日期至2021年12月31日。数据提取和综合:以12个月随访时的体重为主要结局进行多变量回归分析,包括不平等特征与试验组(对照组或干预组)之间的相互作用。每个模型都根据基线体重、年龄和性别进行调整。估计的相互作用通过随机效应荟萃分析合并。干预出勤率定义为亲自参加的会议次数。使用Cochrane的RoB 2工具评估偏倚风险。结果:分析了13/16个符合条件的减肥试验的数据(完整病例数据n=5531名参与者)。干预对12个月时体重的影响,男性参与者(-2.58 kg (95% CI -3.52至1.64))大于女性参与者(-1.71 kg (95% CI -2.79至-0.63);相互作用的p值=0.02,tau2=0),白人参与者(-2.74 kg (95% CI -4.30至-1.19))比少数民族背景的参与者(0.03 kg (95% CI -1.29至1.35))更大;P相互作用=0.04,tau2=0)。年龄、教育程度、职业、居住地和家庭收入对治疗效果无显著调节作用。我们没有发现种族、职业、性别/性别、地区层面的社会经济剥夺或年龄在干预出勤率方面存在不平等的证据。结论:行为体重管理干预对少数民族背景人群的影响较小,对男性的影响较大。没有证据表明在干预效果或依从性方面存在其他差异。这是第一个获取个人参与者数据并定量评估这些干预措施中的不平等的综合研究。未来的研究应进一步探索结果差异的原因,并考虑如何防止行为体重管理干预可能加剧健康不平等。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信