Overweight and obese adults have low intentions of seeking weight-related care: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of obesity is growing worldwide. Obesity guidelines recommend increasing the level of weight-related care for persons with elevated levels of weight-related health risk (WRHR). However, there seems to be a discrepancy between need for and use of weight-related care. The primary aim of this study is to examine predisposing factors that may influence readiness to lose weight and intention to use weight-related care in an overweight population. METHODS: A population-based, cross-sectional survey was conducted. Data were collected using an online self-administered questionnaire sent to a population-representative sample of 1,500 Dutch adults on the Health Care Consumer Panel (n = 861 responded). Data were used from individuals (n = 445) with a mildly, moderately or severely elevated level of WRHR. WRHR status was based on self-reported data on Body Mass Index, risk assessment for diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2) and cardiovascular disease (CVD), or co-morbidities. RESULTS: 55.1% of persons with increased WRHR were ready to lose weight (n = 245). Depending on level of WRHR; educational level, marital status, individuals with an accurate perception of their weight and better perceptions and expectations of dietitians were significantly related to readiness to lose weight. Most of them preferred individual weight-loss methods (82.0% of n = 245). 11% (n = 26 of n = 245) intended to use weight-related care. Weight-related care seeking was higher for those with moderate or severe WRHR. Expectations and trust in dietitians did not seem to influence care seeking. CONCLUSIONS: Many Dutch adults who are medically in need of weight-related care are ready to lose weight. Most intend to lose weight individually, and only a few intend to use weight-related care. Therefore, obesity prevention initiatives should focus on monitoring weight change and weight-loss plans, and timely referral to obesity management. However, many people are not ready to lose weight. For this group, strategies for behaviour change may depend on WRHR, perceptions of weight and dietitians, educational level and marital status. Obesity prevention initiatives should focus on increasing the awareness of the seriousness of their condition and offering individually appropriate weight management programmes.

Dutch General Practitioners' weight management policy for overweight and obese patients.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) can play an important role in both the prevention and management of overweight and obesity. Current general practice guidelines in the Netherlands allow room for GPs to execute their own weight management policy. OBJECTIVE: To examine GPs' current weight management policy and the factors associated with this policy. METHODS: 800 Dutch GPs were asked to complete a questionnaire in December 2012. The questionnaire items were based on the Dutch Obesity Standard for GPs. The data were analyzed by means of descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression analyses in 2013. RESULTS: In total, 307 GPs (39.0%) responded. Most respondents (82.9%) considered weight management as part of their responsibility for providing care. GPs aged <48 years discussed weight less frequent. Next, weight is less frequently discussed with patients without weight-related comorbidities or with moderately overweight patients compared to obese patients. On average, 47.7% of the GPs reported to refer obese patients to a weight management professional, preferably a dietitian (98.3%). GPs with a BMI ≥ 25 kg/m(2) were less likely to refer obese patients. In addition, GPs who had frequent contact with a dietitian were more likely to refer obese patients. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of General Practice and preventive medicine, GPs' discussion of weight and the variety of obesity-determinants with their moderately overweight patients deserves more attention, especially from younger GPs. Strengthening interdisciplinary collaboration between GPs and dietitians could increase the referral percentage for dietary treatment.

Factors associated with the number of consultations per dietetic treatment: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Greater understanding of the variance in the number of consultations per dietetic treatment will increase the transparency of dietetic healthcare. Substantial inter-practitioner variation may suggest a potential to increase efficiency and improve quality. It is not known whether inter-practitioner variation also exists in the field of dietetics. Therefore, the aims of this study are to examine inter-practitioner variation in the number of consultations per treatment and the case-mix factors that explain this variation. METHODS: For this observational study, data were used from the National Information Service for Allied Health Care (LiPZ). LiPZ is a Dutch registration network of allied health care professionals, including dietitians working in primary healthcare. Data were used from 6,496 patients who underwent dietetic treatment between 2006 and 2009, treated by 27 dietitians working in solo practices located throughout the Netherlands. Data collection was based on the long-term computerized registration of healthcare-related information on patients, reimbursement, treatment and health problems, using a regular software program for reimbursement. Poisson multilevel regression analyses were used to model the number of consultations and to account for the clustered structure of the data. RESULTS: After adjusting for case-mix, seven percent of the total variation in consultation sessions was due to dietitians. The mean number of consultations per treatment was 4.9 and ranged from 2.3-10.1 between dietitians. Demographic characteristics, patients' initiative and patients' health problems explained 28% of the inter-practitioner variation. Certain groups of patients used significantly more dietetic healthcare compared to others, i.e. older patients, females, the native Dutch, patients with a history of dietetic healthcare, patients who started the treatment on their own initiative, patients with multiple diagnoses, overweight, or binge eating disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variation in number of consultations per dietetic treatment is due to dietitians. Some of this inter-practitioner variation was reduced after adjusting for case-mix. Further research is necessary to study the relation between inter-practitioner variation and the effectiveness and quality of dietetic treatment.