The impact of multidisciplinary care on attrition rates in weight management programs for women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is one of the most prevalent endocrine system disorders affecting reproductive-aged women of all races and ethnicities. A high prevalence of obesity exists in women with PCOS, who are also vulnerable to attrition from weight management programs. Despite recommendations the implementation of multidisciplinary approaches in weight management programs, there is a lack of literature evaluating their usage in their treatment programs. Objectives: The objectives of this scoping review are to critically examine existing empirical literature to describe multidisciplinary approaches to weight management in populations diagnosed with PCOS and to identify potential factors associated with attrition. Eligibility criteria: This review includes prospective studies of individuals aged 15 and older diagnosed with PCOS enrolled in a multidisciplinary weight management program. Multidisciplinary interventions were defined as participants receiving two or more multidisciplinary lifestyle interventions. Sources of evidence: A systematic search of five electronic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Web of Science) identified articles with a multidisciplinary approach and reported data on attrition in PCOS weight management programs. Charting methods: A descriptive analytical approach and narrative synthesis was conducted to identify themes related to intervention delivery, attrition, and facilitators/barriers of PCOS lifestyle interventions. Results: From a total of 10,944 unique results, 11 articles met inclusion criteria for this review. Attrition rates ranged from 0% to 79.2%. Longer interventions were associated with higher rates of attrition. Control groups generally had lower attrition rates than their corresponding intervention groups. Studies incorporating technology-based interventions reported greater weight loss among participants. Conclusion: Attrition is inconsistently reported among PCOS weight management studies. Variation in attrition rates is likely influenced by several factors such as intervention length and intensity, identified facilitators and barriers to PCOS weight management, and the extent to which care plans are individualized.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".