Physicians certified by the American Board of Obesity Medicine provide evidence-based care

Electronic health records tools for treating obesity among adult patients in primary care: A scoping review

Background

Electronic health record (EHR)-based tools, such as clinical decision support systems (CDSS), support practitioners to promote evidence-based care, which may include obesity treatment. Our objective was to identify obesity-focused CDSS for adult patients in primary care settings to describe their designs, associated primary care practitioner (PCP) training, and outcomes among PCPs and patients.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review to identify and map available evidence using a search strategy for citations in MEDLINE from February 2009 to June 2024. We extracted information from included studies that described EHR-based CDSS tools designed to support obesity care (e.g., clinical decision support, counseling) for adult patients in primary care settings. We mapped common tool features to support weight management and synthesized key lessons learned during implementation of these tools.

Results

Of the 445 citations identified in our search, we included 13 citations reporting on 8 studies. The most common features across EHR-based CDSS tools were 1) identifying overweight or obesity using BMI (88 %) and 2) suggesting treatment strategies (88 %), particularly lifestyle modifications. Most studies provided limited information on the training PCPs received. Few PCPs used the CDSS with eligible patients (<20 %), describing these tools as cumbersome and lacking clinical workflow integration. Novel approaches included using CDSS during weight management-dedicated visits or for referral to obesity medicine physicians, which both showed promising early results of patients achieving weight reduction.

Conclusion

There is a growing body of evidence for obesity-focused CDSS among adult patients in the primary care setting. Our review identified three key lessons that may inform future health system implementation: 1) EHR-based CDSS tools need to be easy to use and integrate with clinical workflows; 2) PCPs need training on these tools for obesity treatment; and 3) Primary care workflow or work-scope may need to be modified to address obesity.

Comparing clinical practice habits among obesity medicine physicians by patient, physician and clinic factors

Background

While clinical practice habits vary by patient, physician and clinic factors in primary care, limited research has examined whether differences exist in obesity medicine. Our objective was to compare practice habits by such factors among obesity medicine physicians certified by the American Board of Obesity Medicine (ABOM).

Methods

We conducted secondary analyses of cross-sectional data from the 2023 ABOM Practice Analysis Validation Survey. We included three obesity medicine practice habits - prescribing anti-obesity medications (AOMs), off-label prescribing of medications for weight reduction, and obesity medicine clinical practice hours (4-20 h/week versus >20 h/week). We included patient (patient population), physician (primary medical specialty, years of obesity medicine experience) and clinic factors (practice setting, geographic catchment, accepts insurance for obesity care). We conducted bivariate analyses using Χ2 tests.

Results

Among 565 ABOM-certified physicians, 71.5 % had primary medical specialties within primary care and 9.2 % predominantly treated children/adolescents with obesity. Overall, 97.5 % prescribed AOMs and 85.1 % prescribed off-label medications for weight reduction. Fewer physicians who predominantly treated children/adolescents prescribed AOMs compared to physicians with no or limited treatment of children (88.5 % versus 98.4 % and 98.5 %, respectively; p < 0.001). Overall, 41.4 % reported practicing obesity medicine >20 h/week, which was more likely to occur as years of obesity medicine experience increased (i.e., 21.9 ​% among physicians with 1-2 years of experience versus 58.5 ​% with 10+ years; p ​< ​0.001). No significant differences in practice habits occurred by primary medical specialty, practice setting, geographic catchment, or accepting insurance.

Conclusion

Our findings may suggest that ABOM-certified physicians have consistent obesity medication prescribing practices regardless of physician or clinic factors, which may be particularly important to patients seeking pharmacologic treatment. Most ABOM-certified physicians who predominantly treat children/adolescents prescribe obesity medications. These current rates are relatively higher than prior findings among pediatric ABOM-certified physicians, which might help support pharmacologic access for pediatric patients.

The American Board of Obesity Medicine: A Pathway to Provision of Competent Obesity Medicine Care

Though obesity is highly prevalent in the United States, undergraduate and graduate medical education regarding obesity is insufficient. There is also clear evidence that few practicing primary care providers use evidence-based guidelines to make obesity treatment decisions. In contrast, American Board of Obesity Medicine diplomates are more likely to provide evidence-based obesity medicine care, and American Board of Obesity Medicine certification signifies that a physician is competent in the practice of obesity medicine.

Duties, tasks, knowledge and skills of an obesity medicine physician: A practice analysis

Background

Given the evolving nature of obesity medicine, periodic evaluation of its clinical practice is needed to ensure that certification requirements address real-world experience. Practice analysis is a systematic approach to define a field's body of knowledge, and its results can inform the content outline and examination blueprint for a certification examination. This study describes the 2023 practice analysis conducted by the American Board of Obesity Medicine (ABOM).

Methods

Initially, 14 obesity medicine physicians participated in a practice analysis panel, resulting in 3 duties and 30 tasks required for competent practice of obesity medicine physicians. Each task included steps, knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to perform the task. ABOM then recruited 645 certified obesity medicine physicians from its database to participate in a validation survey to rate the frequency [scale: never (0) to very frequently (5)] and importance [scale: not important (0) to very important (3)] of each task. Survey participants could also provide open-ended comments.

Results

Among validation survey participants (n = 645), the most common primary medical specialties reported were internal medicine (46.0 %), family medicine (33.8 %), and pediatrics (11.2 %). Years practicing obesity medicine varied with 45.3 % reporting 1-4 years, 26.0 % 5-9 years, and 28.7 % ≥ 10 years in practice. Most tasks were performed frequently (mean score ≥4.0) and rated as important (mean score ≥2.0). All tasks were retained based on the frequency and importance ratings. Survey results informed the weighting in the examination blueprint.

Conclusion

There was consensus among practicing ABOM-certified physicians who participated in the validation survey in the tasks required for competent obesity medicine practice. Our practice analysis approach was a structured process that engaged obesity medicine physicians and captured the breadth and depth of knowledge required for obesity medicine. The new content outline and examination blueprint developed will be implemented with the 2025 ABOM certification exam administration.

Opportunities for General Internal Medicine to Promote Equity in Obesity Care

The number and complexity of obesity treatments has increased rapidly in recent years. This is driven by the approval of new anti-obesity medications (AOMs) that produce larger degrees of weight loss than previously approved AOMs. Unfortunately, access to these highly effective therapies and to integrated team-based obesity care is limited by intra-/interpersonal patient, institutional/practitioner, community, and policy factors. We contextualized these complexities and the impact of patients' social drivers of health (SDOH) by adapting the social ecological model for obesity. Without multi-level intervention, these barriers to care will deepen the existing inequities in obesity prevalence and treatment outcomes among historically underserved communities. As General Internal Medicine (GIM) physicians, we can help our patients navigate the complexities of evidence-based obesity treatments. As care team leaders, GIM physicians are well-positioned to (1) improve education for trainees and practitioners, (2) address healthcare-associated weight stigma, (3) advocate for equity in treatment accessibility, and (4) coordinate interdisciplinary teams around non-traditional models of care focused on upstream (e.g., policy changes, insurance coverage, health system culture change, medical education requirements) and downstream (e.g., evidence-based weight management didactics for trainees, using non-stigmatizing language with patients, developing interdisciplinary weight management clinics) strategies to promote optimal obesity care for all patients.

Implementation of Obesity Science Into Clinical Practice: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Obesity is a recognized public health epidemic with a prevalence that continues to increase dramatically in nearly all populations, impeding progress in reducing incidence rates of cardiovascular disease. Over the past decade, obesity science has evolved to improve knowledge of its multifactorial causes, identifying important biological causes and sociological determinants of obesity. Treatments for obesity have also continued to develop, with more evidence-based programs for lifestyle modification, new pharmacotherapies, and robust data to support bariatric surgery. Despite these advancements, there continues to be a substantial gap between the scientific evidence and the implementation of research into clinical practice for effective obesity management. Addressing barriers to obesity science implementation requires adopting feasible methodologies and targeting multiple levels (eg, clinician, community, system, policy) to facilitate the delivery of obesity-targeted therapies and maximize the effectiveness of guideline-driven care to at-need patient populations. This scientific statement (1) describes strategies shown to be effective or promising for enhancing translation and clinical application of obesity-based research; (2) identifies key gaps in the implementation of obesity science into clinical practice; and (3) provides guidance and resources for health care professionals, health care systems, and other stakeholders to promote broader implementation and uptake of obesity science for improved population-level obesity management. In addition, advances in implementation science that hold promise to bridge the know-do gap in obesity prevention and treatment are discussed. Last, this scientific statement highlights implications for health research policy and future research to improve patient care models and optimize the delivery and sustainability of equitable obesity-related care.

Use of medications associated with weight change among participants in the All of Us research programme

Our objective was to describe the use of medications associated with weight change among US adults with overweight/obesity, including anti-obesity medications (AOMs), weight-loss-promoting and weight-gain-promoting medications. We performed a cross-sectional analysis of data from the nationwide All of Us Research Programme. We included adults with measured body mass index (BMI) ≥ 27 kg/m2 enrolled between 2018 and 2022 across the United States. We used linked electronic health record data to determine medication use ±12 months of BMI measure. Our 132 057 participants had mean age 54 years and mean BMI 34 kg/m2 ; 60% of participants were women, 62% White, and 32% Black. Only 1% used any AOM, and 14% used at least one weight-loss-promoting medication. We found that 36% used at least one weight-gain-promoting medication, and approximately 20% used multiple weight-gain-promoting medications. While AOMs are underutilized by participants with overweight/obesity, weight-gain-promoting medication use is common. Our results raise concern about potential iatrogenic weight gain from medications. Future research is needed to estimate the long-term effect of weight-gain-promoting medications on weight status and determine whether weight-loss benefits occur with their discontinuation. Clinician education on AOMs and weight-loss-promoting medications may be needed to increase their use.

General Practitioners' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Dietary Advice for Weight Control in Their Overweight Patients: A Scoping Review

This scoping review assessed the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of general practitioners (GPs) regarding dietary advice for weight management. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and MEDLINE was conducted for any qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies published in the past five years that informed GPs' dietary advice for weight control. Thirteen studies were included in the analysis after screening 881 papers. These studies tended to focus mostly on GPs' practices rather than their knowledge and attitudes. The most frequently mentioned dietary advice was to reduce calorie intake; however, 32 different types of dietary advice were identified in the literature, including approaches such as intermittent fasting and a ketogenic diet that are not recommended in current guidelines. GPs showed varying levels of knowledge and attitudes regarding the best dietary advice for patients. Further research is needed to better understand GP perspectives, with efforts to assist GPs in providing tailored advice based on the latest evidence to improve patient outcomes required.

Obesity medicine as a subspecialty and United States certification - A review

Background

Certification of obesity medicine for physicians in the United States occurs mainly via the American Board of Obesity Medicine (ABOM). Obesity medicine is not recognized as a subspecialty by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) or the American Osteopathic Association (AOA). This review examines the value of specialization, status of current ABOM Diplomates, governing bodies involved in ABMS/AOA Board Certification, and the advantages and disadvantages of an ABMS/AOA recognized obesity medicine subspecialty.

Methods

Data for this review were derived from PubMed and appliable websites. Content was driven by the expertise, insights, and perspectives of the authors.

Results

The existing ABOM obesity medicine certification process has resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of Obesity Medicine Diplomates. If ABMS/AOA were to recognize obesity medicine as a subspecialty under an existing ABMS Member Board, then Obesity Medicine would achieve a status like other ABMS recognized subspecialities. However, the transition of ABOM Diplomates to ABMS recognized subspecialists may affect the kinds and the number of physicians having an acknowledged focus on obesity medicine care. Among transition issues to consider include: (1) How many ABMS Member Boards would oversee Obesity Medicine as a subspecialty and which physicians would be eligible? (2) Would current ABOM Diplomates be required to complete an Obesity Medicine Fellowship? If not, then what would be the process for a current ABOM Diplomate to transition to an ABMS-recognized Obesity Medicine subspecialist (i.e., "grandfathering criteria")? and (3) According to the ABMS, do enough Obesity Medicine Fellowship programs exist to recognize Obesity Medicine as a subspecialty?

Conclusions

Decisions regarding a transition to an ABMS recognized Obesity Medicine Subspecialty versus retention of the current ABOM Diplomate Certification should consider which best facilitates medical access and care to patients with obesity, and which best helps obesity medicine clinicians be recognized for their expertise.

Disparities in Access and Quality of Obesity Care

Obesity is a chronic disease and a significant public health threat predicated on complex genetic, psychological, and environmental factors. Individuals with higher body mass index are more likely to avoid health care due to weight stigma. Disparities in obesity care disproportionately impact racial and ethnic minorities. In addition to this unequal disease burden, access to obesity treatment varies significantly. Even if treatment options are theoretically productive, they may be more difficult for low-income families, and racial and ethnic minorities to implement in practice secondary to socioeconomic factors. Lastly, the outcomes of undertreatment are significant. Disparities in obesity foreshadow integral inequality in health outcomes, including disability, and premature mortality.

Primary care providers' perceived barriers to obesity treatment and opportunities for improvement: A mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Primary care patients with obesity seldom receive effective weight management treatment in primary care settings. This study aims to understand PCPs' perspectives on obesity treatment barriers and opportunities to overcome them.

STUDY DESIGN

This is an explanatory sequential mixed methods study in which survey data was collected and used to inform subsequent qualitative interviews.

SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

PCPs who provide care to adult patients in an academic medical center in the Midwestern US.

METHODOLOGY

PCPs (n = 350) were invited by email to participate in an online survey. PCPs were subsequently invited to participate in semi-structured interviews to further explore survey domains.

ANALYTIC APPROACH

Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Interviews were analyzed using directed content analysis.

RESULTS

Among 107 survey respondents, less than 10% (n = 8) used evidence-based guidelines to inform obesity treatment decisions. PCPs' identified opportunities to improve obesity treatment including (1) education on local obesity treatment resources (n = 78, 73%), evidence-based dietary counseling strategies (n = 67, 63%), and effective self-help resources (n = 75, 70%) and (2) enhanced team-based care with support from clinic staff (n = 53, 46%), peers trained in obesity medicine (n = 47, 44%), and dietitians (n = 58, 54%). PCPs also desired increased reimbursement for obesity treatment. While 40% (n = 39) of survey respondents expressed interest in obesity medicine training and certification through the American Board of Obesity Medicine, qualitative interviewees felt that pursuing training would require dedicated time (i.e., reduced clinical effort) and financial support.

CONCLUSIONS

Opportunities to improve obesity treatment in primary care settings include educational initiatives, use of team-based care models, and policy changes to incentivize obesity treatment. Primary care clinics or health systems should be encouraged to identify PCPs with specific interests in obesity medicine and support their training and certification through ABOM by reimbursing training costs and reducing clinical effort to allow for study and board examination.

Developing weight navigation program to support personalized and effective obesity management in primary care settings: protocol for a quality improvement program with an embedded single-arm pilot study

BACKGROUND

Primary care providers (PCPs) are expected to help patients with obesity to lose weight through behavior change counseling and patient-centered use of available weight management resources. Yet, many PCPs face knowledge gaps and clinical time constraints that hinder their ability to successfully support patients' weight loss. Fortunately, a small and growing number of physicians are now certified in obesity medicine through the American Board of Obesity Medicine (ABOM) and can provide personalized and effective obesity treatment to individual patients. Little is known, however, about how to extend the expertise of ABOM-certified physicians to support PCPs and their many patients with obesity.

AIM

To develop and pilot test an innovative care model - the Weight Navigation Program (WNP) - to integrate ABOM-certified physicians into primary care settings and to enhance the delivery of personalized, effective obesity care.

METHODS

Quality improvement program with an embedded, 12-month, single-arm pilot study. Patients with obesity and ≥1 weight-related co-morbidity may be referred to the WNP by PCPs. All patients seen within the WNP during the first 12 months of clinical operations will be compared to a matched cohort of patients from another primary care site. We will recruit a subset of WNP patients (n = 30) to participate in a remote weight monitoring pilot program, which will include surveys at 0, 6, and 12 months, qualitative interviews at 0 and 6 months, and use of an electronic health record (EHR)-based text messaging program for remote weight monitoring.

DISCUSSION

Obesity is a complex chronic condition that requires evidence-based, personalized, and longitudinal care. To deliver such care in general practice, the WNP leverages the expertise of ABOM-certified physicians, health system and community weight management resources, and EHR-based population health management tools. The WNP is an innovative model with the potential to be implemented, scaled, and sustained in diverse primary care settings.

A national evaluation of geographic accessibility and provider availability of obesity medicine diplomates in the United States between 2011 and 2019

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Obesity is a pressing health concern within the United States (US). Obesity medicine "diplomates" receive specialized training, yet it is unclear if their accessibility and availability adequately serves the need. The purpose of this research was to understand how accessibility has evolved over time and assess the practicality of serving an estimated patient population with the current distribution and quantity of diplomates.

METHODS

Population-weighted Census tracts in US counties were mapped to the nearest facility on a road network with at least one diplomate who specialized in adult (including geriatric) care between 2011 and 2019. The median travel time for all Census tracts within a county represented the primary geographic access measure. Availability was assessed by estimating the number of diplomates per 100 000 patients with obesity and the number of facilities able to serve assigned patients under three clinical guidelines.

RESULTS

Of the 3371 diplomates certified since 2019, 3036 were included. The median travel time (weighted for county population) fell from 28.5 min [IQR: 13.7, 68.1] in 2011 to 9.95 min [IQR: 7.49, 18.1] in 2019. There were distinct intra- and inter-year travel time variations by race, ethnicity, education, median household income, rurality, and Census region (all P < 0.001). The median number of diplomates per 100 000 with obesity grew from 1 [IQR: 0.39, 1.59] in 2011 to 5 [IQR: 2.74, 11.4] in 2019. In 2019, an estimated 1.7% of facilities could meet the recommended number of visits for all mapped patients with obesity, up from 0% in 2011.

CONCLUSIONS

Diplomate geographic access and availability have improved over time, yet there is still not a high enough supply to serve the potential patient demand. Future studies should quantify patient-level associations between travel time and health outcomes, including whether the number of available diplomates impacts utilization.

Attitudes, Perceptions, and Practices in Managing Obesity Among Endocrinologists

OBJECTIVE

Obesity is globally recognized as a critically important disease by professional medical organizations in addition to the World Health Organization and American Medical Association, but the health care systems, medical teams, and the public have been slow to embrace this concept.

METHODS

American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE) staff drafted the survey, and two endocrinologists independently reviewed the survey questions and modified the survey instrument. The survey included inquiries related to practice and patient demographics, awareness of obesity, treatment of obesity, barriers to improving obesity outcomes, digital health, cognitive behavioral therapy, lifestyle medicine, anti-obesity medications, weight stigma, and social determinants of health. The survey was emailed to 493 endocrinologists, with 305 completing the study (62%).

RESULTS

Ninety-eight percent of the responders agree that obesity is a disease, while 2% neither agree nor disagree. 53% of respondents are familiar with the term "adiposity-based chronic disease." 13% of the respondents are certified by the American Board of Obesity Medicine (ABOM). 57% of the respondents use published obesity guidelines as a resource for treating patients with obesity. Most endocrinologists recommend dietary and lifestyle changes, but fewer prescribe anti-obesity medication (AOM) or recommend bariatric surgery. ABOM-certified endocrinologists are more likely to use a multidisciplinary approach.

CONCLUSION

Self-reported knowledge and practices in the management of obesity highlight the importance of a multimodal approach to obesity and foster collaboration among healthcare professionals. It is necessary to raise awareness about obesity among clinicians, identify knowledge gaps and create educational tools to address those gaps.