↓ Skip to main content

Randomised controlled trial and economic analysis of an internet-based weight management programme: POWeR+ (Positive Online Weight Reduction)

Overview of attention for book
Cover of 'Randomised controlled trial and economic analysis of an internet-based weight management programme: POWeR+ (Positive Online Weight Reduction)'
Overall attention for this book
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
23 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 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
Randomised controlled trial and economic analysis of an internet-based weight management programme: POWeR+ (Positive Online Weight Reduction)
Published by
Health technology assessment : HTA / NHS R & D HTA Programme., January 2017
DOI 10.3310/hta21040
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Little, Beth Stuart, FD Richard Hobbs, Jo Kelly, Emily R Smith, Katherine J Bradbury, Stephanie Hughes, Peter WF Smith, Michael V Moore, Mike EJ Lean, Barrie M Margetts, Christopher D Byrne, Simon Griffin, Mina Davoudianfar, Julie Hooper, Guiqing Yao, Shihua Zhu, James Raftery, Lucy Yardley

Abstract

Behavioural counselling with intensive follow-up for obesity is effective, but in resource-constrained primary care settings briefer approaches are needed. To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an internet-based behavioural intervention with regular face-to-face or remote support in primary care, compared with brief advice. Individually randomised three-arm parallel trial with health economic evaluation and nested qualitative interviews. Primary care general practices in the UK. Patients with a body mass index of ≥ 30 kg/m(2) (or ≥ 28 kg/m(2) with risk factors) identified from general practice records, recruited by postal invitation. Positive Online Weight Reduction (POWeR+) is a 24-session, web-based weight management intervention completed over 6 months. Following online registration, the website randomly allocated participants using computer-generated random numbers to (1) the control intervention (n = 279), which had previously been demonstrated to be clinically effective (brief web-based information that minimised pressure to cut down foods, instead encouraging swaps to healthier choices and increasing fruit and vegetables, plus 6-monthly nurse weighing); (2) POWeR+F (n = 269), POWeR+ supplemented by face-to-face nurse support (up to seven contacts); or (3) POWeR+R (n = 270), POWeR+ supplemented by remote nurse support (up to five e-mails or brief telephone calls). The primary outcome was a modelled estimate of average weight reduction over 12 months, assessed blind to group where possible, using multiple imputation for missing data. The secondary outcome was the number of participants maintaining a 5% weight reduction at 12 months. A total of 818 eligible individuals were randomised using computer-generated random numbers. Weight change, averaged over 12 months, was documented in 666 out of 818 participants (81%; control, n = 227; POWeR+F, n = 221; POWeR+R, n = 218). The control group maintained nearly 3 kg of weight loss per person (mean weight per person: baseline, 104.4 kg; 6 months, 101.9 kg; 12 months, 101.7 kg). Compared with the control group, the estimated additional weight reduction with POWeR+F was 1.5 kg [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6 to 2.4 kg; p = 0.001] and with POWeR+R was 1.3 kg (95% CI 0.34 to 2.2 kg; p = 0.007). By 12 months the mean weight loss was not statistically significantly different between groups, but 20.8% of control participants, 29.2% of POWeR+F participants (risk ratio 1.56, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.51; p = 0.070) and 32.4% of POWeR+R participants (risk ratio 1.82, 95% CI 1.31 to 2.74; p = 0.004) maintained a clinically significant 5% weight reduction. The POWeR+R group had fewer individuals who reported doing another activity to help lose weight [control, 47.1% (64/136); POWeR+F, 37.2% (51/137); POWeR+R, 26.7% (40/150)]. The incremental cost to the health service per kilogram weight lost, compared with the control group, was £18 (95% CI -£129 to £195) for POWeR+F and -£25 (95% CI -£268 to £157) for POWeR+R. The probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of £100 per kilogram was 88% and 98% for POWeR+F and POWeR+R, respectively. POWeR+R was dominant compared with the control group. No harms were reported and participants using POWeR+ felt more enabled in managing their weight. The qualitative studies documented that POWeR+ was viewed positively by patients and that health-care professionals generally enjoyed supporting patients using POWeR+. Maintenance of weight loss after 1 year is unknown. Identifying strategies for longer-term engagement, impact in community settings and increasing physical activity. Clinically valuable weight loss (> 5%) is maintained in 20% of individuals using novel written materials with brief follow-up. A web-based behavioural programme and brief support results in greater mean weight loss and 10% more participants maintain valuable weight loss; it achieves greater enablement and fewer participants undertaking other weight-loss activities; and it is likely to be cost-effective. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN21244703. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 4. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 120 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 32 26%
Student > Master 30 25%
Researcher 17 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 22 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 38 31%
Medicine and Dentistry 27 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 21%
Psychology 12 10%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Other 13 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 18 April 2019.
All research outputs
#778,037
of 13,628,925 outputs
Outputs from Health technology assessment : HTA / NHS R & D HTA Programme.
#84
of 853 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,285
of 346,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health technology assessment : HTA / NHS R & D HTA Programme.
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,628,925 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 853 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. 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 346,366 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.