Exploring the evidence base for Tier 3 weight management interventions for adults: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Specialist weight management services provide a treatment option for severe obesity. The objective of the study is to review the characteristics, impact and practice implications of specialist weight management services for adults in the UK. Systematic review: EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO were searched from January 2005 to March 2016 with supplementary searches. Adults with a body mass index of ≥40 kg m−2, or ≥35 kg m−2 with comorbidity or ≥30 kg m−2 with type 2 diabetes and any study of multicomponent interventions, in any UK or Ireland setting, delivered by a specialist multidisciplinary team are the inclusion criteria. Fourteen studies in a variety of settings were included: 1 randomized controlled trial, 3 controlled and 10 observational studies. Mean baseline body mass index and age ranged from 40 to 54 kg m−2 and from 40 to 58 years. The studies were heterogeneous making comparisons of service characteristics difficult. Multidisciplinary team composition and eligibility criteria varied; dropout rates were high (43–62%). Statistically significant reduction in mean body mass index over time ranged from −1.4 to −3.1 kg m−2 and mean weight changes ranged from −2.2 to −12.4 kg. Completers achieving at least 5% reduction of initial body weight ranged from 32 to 51%. There was evidence for improved outcomes in diabetics. Specialist weight management services can demonstrate clinically significant weight loss and have an important role in supporting adults to manage severe and often complex forms of obesity. This review highlights important variations in provision and strongly indicates the need for further research into effective approaches to support severely obese adults.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".