↓ Skip to main content

GP-delivered brief weight loss interventions: a cohort study of patient responses and subsequent actions, using conversation analysis in UK primary care

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
51 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
GP-delivered brief weight loss interventions: a cohort study of patient responses and subsequent actions, using conversation analysis in UK primary care
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, August 2018
DOI 10.3399/bjgp18x698405
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charlotte Albury, Elizabeth Stokoe, Sue Ziebland, Helena Webb, Paul Aveyard

Abstract

Guidelines encourage GPs to make brief opportunistic interventions to support weight loss. However, GPs fear that starting these discussions will lead to lengthy consultations. Recognising that patients are committed to take action could allow GPs to shorten brief interventions. To examine which patient responses indicated commitment to action, and the time saved if these had been recognised and the consultation closed sooner. A mixed-method cohort study of UK primary care patients participating in a trial of opportunistic weight management interventions. Conversation analysis was applied to 226 consultation audiorecordings to identify types of responses from patients that indicated that an offer of referral to weight management was well received. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated to examine associations between response types and likelihood of weight management programme attendance. Affirmative responses, for example 'yes', displayed no conversational evidence that the referral was well received and showed no association with attendance: 'yes' (OR 1.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.37 to 3.95, P = 0.97). However, 'oh'-prefaced responses and marked positive responses, for example 'lovely', showed conversational evidence of enthusiasm and were associated with higher odds of commercial weight management service attendance. Recognising these could have saved doctors a mean of 31 seconds per consultation. When doctors make brief opportunistic interventions that incorporate the offer of help, 'oh'-prefaced or marked positive responses indicate enthusiastic acceptance of the offer and a higher likelihood of take-up. Recognising these responses and moving swiftly to facilitate patient action would shorten the brief intervention in many cases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Unspecified 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 19 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 15%
Social Sciences 8 13%
Linguistics 5 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Unspecified 5 8%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 20 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 February 2023.
All research outputs
#1,007,442
of 25,375,376 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#447
of 4,707 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,070
of 337,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#17
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,375,376 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,707 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,579 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.