Do images of a personalised future body shape help with weight loss? A randomised controlled study.

BACKGROUND: This randomised controlled study evaluated a computer-generated future self-image as a personalised, visual motivational tool for weight loss in adults. METHODS: One hundred and forty-five people (age 18-79 years) with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of at least 25 kg/m2 were randomised to receive a hard copy future self-image at recruitment (early image) or after 8 weeks (delayed image). Participants received general healthy lifestyle information at recruitment and were weighed at 4-weekly intervals for 24 weeks. The image was created using an iPad app called 'Future Me'. A second randomisation at 16 weeks allocated either an additional future self-image or no additional image. RESULTS: Seventy-four participants were allocated to receive their image at commencement, and 71 to the delayed-image group. Regarding to weight loss, the delayed-image group did consistently better in all analyses. Twenty-four recruits were deemed non-starters, comprising 15 (21%) in the delayed-image group and 9 (12%) in the early-image group (χ2(1) = 2.1, p = 0.15). At 24 weeks there was a significant change in weight overall (p < 0.0001), and a difference in rate of change between groups (delayed-image group: -0.60 kg, early-image group: -0.42 kg, p = 0.01). Men lost weight faster than women. The group into which participants were allocated at week 16 (second image or not) appeared not to influence the outcome (p = 0.31). Analysis of all completers and withdrawals showed a strong trend over time (p < 0.0001), and a difference in rate of change between groups (delayed-image: -0.50 kg, early-image: -0.27 kg, p = 0.0008). CONCLUSION: One in five participants in the delayed-image group completing the 24-week intervention achieved a clinically significant weight loss, having received only future self-images and general lifestyle advice. Timing the provision of future self-images appears to be significant, and promising for future research to clarify their efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian Clinical Trials Registry, identifier: ACTRN12613000883718 . Registered on 8 August 2013.

Weight management practices and evidence for weight loss through primary care: a brief review.

OBJECTIVE: The optimal role for primary care in the management of overweight and obesity is yet to be determined. This review examines current weight management practices in primary care and summarizes the evidence for weight loss interventions based in primary care settings. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: PubMed was searched for literature on weight management in primary care published from 2000 onwards. Forty-one articles were included. RESULTS: The prevalence of overweight and obesity is high among primary care patients, yet frequently under-diagnosed by general practitioners. When diagnosed, weight management practices are highly variable. Evidence supporting effective long term interventions for weight loss in primary care is limited. Consistency of outcome measures, explicit reporting of attrition rates and assessment of motivation at inclusion are critical for interpreting results. CONCLUSIONS: An approach to weight management that includes the involvement of disciplines other than general practice appears to be more successful. Further research is required to determine the most effective approach in primary care.

The impact of the quality of communication from nephrologists to primary care practitioners: a literature review.

OBJECTIVE: This review of the literature aims to explore two research questions: (1) what is the evidence that patients benefit from sound communication between primary care practitioners (PCPs) and nephrologists; and (2) what information is required in primary care to meet the needs of patients who have attended a renal unit? RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Fifty-seven citations were independently reviewed by four authors. The inclusion criteria were: (1) the article focused on information flow from nephrologists and/or specialists to general practitioners; (2) it includes the involvement of PCPs in nephrology, including registrars and PCPs with special interests or specialists in any medical field; (3) it was published from 1990 onwards (inclusive) and (4) the study was conducted in the United Kingdom, Canada, The Netherlands, Australia, United States or New Zealand. Selected articles were then reviewed by the fifth author as a measure of inter-rater reliability. RESULTS: Eighteen papers in four categories were identified: six audits or observational studies, one meta-analysis; one randomized controlled trial; six qualitative studies; and four position statements or quality improvement tools. Published audits involving feedback to clinicians using validated tools demonstrate the scope for substantial improvement in the amount of information relayed to PCPs. Specialists may not prioritize the letter to the PCP but there is some evidence of a direct impact from limited or inadequate communication on patient outcomes. Only two studies focused on patients attending nephrology clinics. CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that improving the quality of letters from specialists to PCPs may benefit patient care. This review suggests a need for research on communication from nephrologists about patients who have received care at a renal unit regardless of whether or not the patient continues to attend.

Using the ISBAR handover tool in junior medical officer handover: a study in an Australian tertiary hospital.

BACKGROUND: Despite being essential to patient care, current clinical handover practices are inconsistent and error prone. Efforts to improve handover have attracted attention recently, with the ISBAR tool increasingly utilised as a format for structured handover communication. However, ISBAR has not been validated in a junior medical officer setting. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of the ISBAR handover tool on junior medical officer (JMO) handover communication in an Australian hospital. METHODS: JMOs who participated in after-hours handover during an 11 week clinical term from June to August 2009 were recruited. After-hours handover was audiotaped, and JMOs completed a survey to assess current handover perception and practice. JMOs then participated in a 1 h education session on handover and use of the ISBAR handover tool, and were encouraged to handover using this method. Following the education session, participants were surveyed to measure perceived changes in handover with use of ISBAR, and handover was again audiotaped to assess differences in information transfer and duration. RESULTS: Following the introduction of ISBAR, 25/36 (71%) of JMOs felt there was an overall improvement in handover communication. Specifically, they perceived improvement in the structure and consistency of handover, they felt more confident receiving handover, and they believed patient care and safety were improved. Audio-tape data demonstrated increased transfer of key clinical information during handover with no significant effect on handover duration. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the ISBAR tool improves JMO perception of handover communication in a time neutral fashion. Consideration should be given to the introduction of ISBAR in all JMO handover settings.