↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, March 2017
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 (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 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
The evaluating self-management and educational support in severely obese patients awaiting multidisciplinary bariatric care (EVOLUTION) trial: principal results
Published in
BMC Medicine, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0808-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raj S. Padwal, Scott Klarenbach, Arya M. Sharma, Miriam Fradette, Susan E. Jelinski, Alun Edwards, Sumit R. Majumdar

Abstract

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. 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. 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/m(2) 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. 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. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01860131 . Registered 17 May 2013.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 97 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Researcher 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 3%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 37 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 21 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 14%
Psychology 6 6%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 46 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 02 October 2020.
All research outputs
#1,954,731
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,309
of 3,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,215
of 310,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#34
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,448 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 310,717 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.