The evaluating self-management and educational support in severely obese patients awaiting multidisciplinary bariatric care (EVOLUTION) trial: principal results.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, demand for multidisciplinary bariatric (obesity) care far outstrips capacity. Consequently, prolonged wait times exist that contribute to substantial health impairments. A supportive, educational, self-management intervention (with in-person and web-based versions) for patients wait-listed for bariatric care has already been implemented in Northern and Central Alberta, Canada, but its effectiveness is unknown. The objective of this trial is to evaluate the clinical and economic outcomes of two self-management programs of varying intensity that are currently in use. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, prospective, parallel-arm, randomized controlled trial of 651 wait-listed patients from two regional bariatric programs. Patients were randomized to (1) an in-person, group-based intervention (13 sessions; n = 215) or (2) a web-based intervention (13 modules; n = 225) or (3) control group (printed educational materials; n = 211). After randomization, subjects had 3 months to review the content assigned to them (the intervention period) prior to bariatric clinic entry. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving 5% weight loss at 9 months. Intention-to-treat two-way comparisons were performed and adjusted for baseline age, sex, site and body mass index. RESULTS: At baseline, mean age was 40.4 ± 9.8 years, mean weight was 134.7 ± 25.2 kg, mean body mass index was 47.7 ± 7.0 kg/m2 and 83% of participants were female. A total of 463 patients (71%) completed 9 months follow-up. At least 5% weight loss was achieved by 24.2% of those in the in-person strategy, 24.9% for the web-based strategy and 21.3% for controls (adjusted p value = 0.26 for in-person vs. controls, 0.28 for web-based vs. controls, 0.96 for in-person vs. web-based). Absolute and relative (% of baseline) mean weight reductions were 3.7 ± 7.1 kg (2.7 ± 5.4%) for in-person strategy, 2.8 ± 6.7 kg (2.0 ± 4.8%) for web-based and 2.9 ± 8.8 kg (1.9 ± 5.9%) for controls (p > 0.05 for all comparisons). No between-group differences were apparent for any clinical or humanistic secondary outcomes. Total annual costs in Canadian dollars were estimated at $477,000.00 for the in-person strategy, $9456.78 for the web-based strategy and $2270.31 for provision of printed materials. DISCUSSION: Two different self-management interventions were no more effective and were more costly than providing printed education materials to severely obese patients. Our findings underscore the need to develop more potent interventions and the importance of comprehensively evaluating self-management strategies before widespread implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01860131 . Registered 17 May 2013.

Design and validation of a low cost, high-capacity weighing device for wheelchair users and bariatrics.

Accessible high-capacity weighing scales are scarce in healthcare facilities, in part due to high device cost and weight. This shortage impairs weight monitoring and health maintenance for people with disabilities and/or morbid obesity. We conducted this study to design and validate a lighter, lower cost, high-capacity accessible weighing device. A prototype featuring 360 kg (800 lbs) of weight capacity, a wheelchair-accessible ramp, and wireless data transmission was fabricated. Forty-five participants (20 standing, 20 manual wheelchair users, and five power wheelchair users) were weighed using the prototype and a calibrated scale. Participants were surveyed to assess perception of each weighing device and the weighing procedure. Weight measurements between devices demonstrated a strong linear correlation (R2 = 0.997) with absolute differences of 1.4 ± 2.0% (mean±SD). Participant preference ratings showed no difference between devices. The prototype weighed 11 kg (38%) less than the next lightest high-capacity commercial device found by author survey. The prototype's estimated commercial price range, $500-$600, is approximately half the price of the least expensive commercial device found by author survey. Such low cost weighing devices may improve access to weighing instrumentation, which may in turn help eliminate current health disparities. Future work is needed to determine the feasibility of market transition.

Comparison of three instruments assessing the quality of economic evaluations: a practical exercise on economic evaluations of the surgical treatment of obesity.

OBJECTIVES: The increasing use of full economic evaluations has led to the development of various instruments to assess their quality. The purpose of this study was to compare the frequently used British Medical Journal (BMJ) check-list and two new instruments: the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list and the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. The analysis was based on a practical exercise on economic evaluations of the surgical treatment of obesity. METHODS: The quality of nine selected studies was assessed independently by two health economists. To compare instruments, the Spearman rank correlation coefficient was calculated for each assessor. Moreover, the test-retest reliability for each instrument was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (3,1). Finally, the inter-rater agreement for each instrument was estimated at two levels: comparison of the total score of each article by the ICC(2,1) and comparison of results per item by kappa values. RESULTS: The Spearman's rank correlation coefficient between instruments was usually high (rho > 0.70). Furthermore, test-retest reliability was good for every instruments, that is, 0.98 (95 percent CI, 0.86-0.99) for the BMJ check-list, 0.97 (95 percent CI, 0.73-0.98) for the CHEC list, and 0.95 (95 percent CI, 0.75-0.99) for the QHES instrument. However, inter-rater agreement was poor (kappa < 0.40 for most items and ICC(2,1) < or = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that the results of the quality assessment of economic evaluations are not so much influenced by the instrument used but more by the assessor. Therefore, quality assessments should be performed by at least two independent experts and final scoring based on consensus.

Barriers to obesity treatment.

Obesity, one of the most prevalent health problems in the Western world, is a chronic and progressive condition. Therefore, as with other chronic diseases, patients with obesity require lifelong treatment. Long-term efficacy and effectiveness of obesity treatments is notoriously poor. This may in part be attributable to the substantial barriers that undermine long-term obesity management strategies. These can include lack of recognition of obesity as a chronic condition, low socioeconomic status, time constraints, intimate saboteurs, and a wide range of comorbidities including mental health, sleep, chronic pain, musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, respiratory, digestive and endocrine disorders. Furthermore, medications used to treat some of these disorders may further undermine weight-loss efforts. Lack of specific obesity training of health professionals, attitudes and beliefs as well as coverage and availability of obesity treatments can likewise pose important barriers. Health professionals need to take care to identify, acknowledge and address these barriers where possible to increase patient success as well as compliance and adherence with treatments. Failure to do so may further undermine the sense of failure, low self esteem and self efficacy already common among obese individuals. Addressing treatment barriers can save resources and increase the prospect of long-term success.

Current issues and challenges in the management of bariatric patients.

Morbid obesity is an increasingly common healthcare problem, and providers and patients currently face numerous challenges in dealing with this problem effectively. Issues addressed in this article include the effect of stigma, the need for more evidence regarding effective management options, and the declining insurance coverage for bariatric surgery. The role of bariatric surgery in effective management of morbid obesity is discussed, along with the effect on and possible reasons for declining coverage. A comparison between benefits and coverage for bariatric surgery and angioplasty/stent placement is included.