Counselling overweight and obese patients in primary care: a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Primary care physicians are well positioned to provide counselling for overweight and obese patients, but no prospective study has assessed the effectiveness of this counselling in primary care. We aimed to evaluate weight reduction counselling by primary care physicians, and its relationship with weight change and patients' behaviour to control weight. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. METHODS: We enrolled 523 consecutive overweight and obese patients from two Swiss academic primary care clinics. Physicians and patients were blinded to the study aims. We assessed the use of 10 predefined counselling strategies for weight reduction, and weight change and behaviour to control weight after 1 year. RESULTS: Sixty-five per cent of patients received some form of weight reduction counselling whereas 35% received no counselling. A total of 407 patients completed the 1-year follow-up. Those who received counselling lost on average (SD) 1.0 (5.0) kg after 1 year, whereas those who were not advised gained 0.3 (5.0) kg (P = 0.02). In multivariate analysis, each additional counselling strategy was associated with a mean weight loss of 0.2 kg (95% confidence interval 0.03-0.4, P = 0.02). Patients counselled by their physician had more favourable behaviour to control weight than those not counselled, such as setting a target weight (56 versus 36%) or visiting a dietician (23 versus 10%, both P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Weight reduction counselling by primary care physicians is associated with a modest weight loss and favourable behaviour to control weight. However, many obese and overweight patients receive no advice on weight loss during primary care visits.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".