A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of behavioural weight management programmes and examine how programme characteristics affect mean weight loss. Randomized controlled trials of multicomponent behavioural weight management programmes in overweight and obese adults were included. References were obtained through systematic searches of electronic databases (conducted November 2012), screening reference lists and contacting experts. Two reviewers extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. Thirty-seven studies, representing over 16,000 participants, were included. The pooled mean difference in weight loss at 12 months was -2.8 kg (95% confidence interval [CI] -3.6 to -2.1, P < 0.001). I(2) indicated that 93% of the variability in outcome was due to differences in programme effectiveness. Meta-analysis showed no evidence that supervised physical activity sessions (mean difference 1.1 kg, 95% CI -2.65 to 4.79, P = 0.08), more frequent contact (mean difference -0.3 kg, 95% CI -0.7 to 0.2, P = 0.25) or in-person contact (mean difference 0.0 kg, 95% CI -1.8 to 1.8, P = 0.06) were related to programme effectiveness at 12 months. In meta-regression, calorie counting (-3.3 kg, 95% CI -4.6 to -2.0, P = 0.027), contact with a dietitian (-1.5 kg, 95% CI -2.9 to -0.2, P < 0.001) and use of behaviour change techniques that compare participants' behaviour with others (-1.5 kg, 95% CI -2.9 to -0.1, P = 0.032) were associated with greater weight loss. There was no evidence that other programme characteristics were associated with programme effectiveness. Most but not all behavioural weight management programmes are effective. Programmes that support participants to count calories or include a dietitian may be more effective, but the programme characteristics explaining success are mainly unknown.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 357. 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 15 June 2025.
All research outputs
#113,689
of 34,307,719 outputs
Outputs from Obesity Reviews
#46
of 2,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#751
of 282,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Obesity Reviews
#1
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,307,719 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,432 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 282,629 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
