Access to publicly funded weight management services in England using routine data from primary and secondary care (2007-2020): An observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Adults living with overweight/obesity are eligible for publicly funded weight management (WM) programmes according to national guidance. People with the most severe and complex obesity are eligible for bariatric surgery. Primary care plays a key role in identifying overweight/obesity and referring to WM interventions. This study aimed to (1) describe the primary care population in England who (a) are referred for WM interventions and (b) undergo bariatric surgery and (2) determine the patient and GP practice characteristics associated with both.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

An observational cohort study was undertaken using routinely collected primary care data in England from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked with Hospital Episode Statistics. During the study period (January 2007 to June 2020), 1,811,587 adults met the inclusion criteria of a recording of overweight/obesity in primary care, of which 54.62% were female and 20.10% aged 45 to 54. Only 56,783 (3.13%) were referred to WM, and 3,701 (1.09% of those with severe and complex obesity) underwent bariatric surgery. Multivariable Poisson regression examined the associations of demographic, clinical, and regional characteristics on the likelihood of WM referral and bariatric surgery. Higher body mass index (BMI) and practice region had the strongest associations with both outcomes. People with BMI ≥40 kg/m2 were more than 6 times as likely to be referred for WM (10.05% of individuals) than BMI 25.0 to 29.9 kg/m2 (1.34%) (rate ratio (RR) 6.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) [5.99,6.40], p < 0.001). They were more than 5 times as likely to undergo bariatric surgery (3.98%) than BMI 35.0 to 40.0 kg/m2 with a comorbidity (0.53%) (RR 5.52, 95% CI [5.07,6.02], p < 0.001). Patients from practices in the West Midlands were the most likely to have a WM referral (5.40%) (RR 2.17, 95% CI [2.10,2.24], p < 0.001, compared with the North West, 2.89%), and practices from the East of England least likely (1.04%) (RR 0.43, 95% CI [0.41,0.46], p < 0.001, compared with North West). Patients from practices in London were the most likely to undergo bariatric surgery (2.15%), and practices in the North West the least likely (0.68%) (RR 3.29, 95% CI [2.88,3.76], p < 0.001, London compared with North West). Longer duration since diagnosis with severe and complex obesity (e.g., 1.67% of individuals diagnosed in 2007 versus 0.34% in 2015, RR 0.20, 95% CI [0.12,0.32], p < 0.001), and increasing comorbidities (e.g., 2.26% of individuals with 6+ comorbidities versus 1.39% with none (RR 8.79, 95% CI [7.16,10.79], p < 0.001) were also strongly associated with bariatric surgery. The main limitation is the reliance on overweight/obesity being recorded within primary care records to identify the study population.

CONCLUSIONS

Between 2007 and 2020, a very small percentage of the primary care population eligible for WM referral or bariatric surgery according to national guidance received either. Higher BMI and GP practice region had the strongest associations with both. Regional inequalities may reflect differences in commissioning and provision of WM services across the country. Multi-stakeholder qualitative research is ongoing to understand the barriers to accessing WM services and potential solutions. Together with population-wide prevention strategies, improved access to WM interventions is needed to reduce obesity levels.

Development of a Bariatric Surgery Core Data Set for an International Registry

PURPOSE

Bariatric and metabolic surgery is an effective treatment for severe and complex obesity; however, robust long-term data comparing operations is lacking. Clinical registries complement clinical trials in contributing to this evidence base. Agreement on standard data for bariatric registries is needed to facilitate comparisons. This study developed a Core Registry Set (CRS) - core data to include in bariatric surgery registries globally.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Relevant items were identified from a bariatric surgery research core outcome set, a registry data dictionary project, systematic literature searches, and a patient advisory group. This comprehensive list informed a questionnaire for a two-round Delphi survey with international health professionals. Participants rated each item's importance and received anonymized feedback in round 2. Using pre-defined criteria, items were then categorized for voting at a consensus meeting to agree the CRS.

RESULTS

Items identified from all sources were grouped into 97 questionnaire items. Professionals (n = 272) from 56 countries participated in the round 1 survey of which 45% responded to round 2. Twenty-four professionals from 13 countries participated in the consensus meeting. Twelve items were voted into the CRS including demographic and bariatric procedure information, effectiveness, and safety outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This CRS is the first step towards unifying bariatric surgery registries internationally. We recommend the CRS is included as a minimum dataset in all bariatric registries worldwide. Adoption of the CRS will enable meaningful international comparisons of bariatric operations. Future work will agree definitions and measures for the CRS including incorporating quality-of-life measures defined in a parallel project.

Outcomes of the first global multidisciplinary consensus meeting including persons living with obesity to standardize patient-reported outcome measurement in obesity treatment research

Quality of life is a key outcome that is not rigorously measured in obesity treatment research due to the lack of standardization of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and PRO measures (PROMs). The S.Q.O.T. initiative was founded to Standardize Quality of life measurement in Obesity Treatment. A first face-to-face, international, multidisciplinary consensus meeting was conducted to identify the key PROs and preferred PROMs for obesity treatment research. It comprised of 35 people living with obesity (PLWO) and healthcare providers (HCPs). Formal presentations, nominal group techniques, and modified Delphi exercises were used to develop consensus-based recommendations. The following eight PROs were considered important: self-esteem, physical health/functioning, mental/psychological health, social health, eating, stigma, body image, and excess skin. Self-esteem was considered the most important PRO, particularly for PLWO, while physical health was perceived to be the most important among HCPs. For each PRO, one or more PROMs were selected, except for stigma. This consensus meeting was a first step toward standardizing PROs (what to measure) and PROMs (how to measure) in obesity treatment research. It provides an overview of the key PROs and a first selection of the PROMs that can be used to evaluate these PROs.

British Obesity and Metabolic Surgery Society Guidelines on perioperative and postoperative biochemical monitoring and micronutrient replacement for patients undergoing bariatric surgery-2020 update

Bariatric surgery is recognized as the most clinically and cost-effective treatment for people with severe and complex obesity. Many people presenting for surgery have pre-existing low vitamin and mineral concentrations. The incidence of these may increase after bariatric surgery as all procedures potentially cause clinically significant micronutrient deficiencies. Therefore, preparation for surgery and long-term nutritional monitoring and follow-up are essential components of bariatric surgical care. These guidelines update the 2014 British Obesity and Metabolic Surgery Society nutritional guidelines. Since the 2014 guidelines, the working group has been expanded to include healthcare professionals working in specialist and non-specialist care as well as patient representatives. In addition, in these updated guidelines, the current evidence has been systematically reviewed for adults and adolescents undergoing the following procedures: adjustable gastric band, sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and biliopancreatic diversion/duodenal switch. Using methods based on Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology, the levels of evidence and recommendations have been graded. These guidelines are comprehensive, encompassing preoperative and postoperative biochemical monitoring, vitamin and mineral supplementation and correction of nutrition deficiencies before, and following bariatric surgery, and make recommendations for safe clinical practice in the U.K. setting.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review describes the latest evidence for the impact of bariatric surgery on health-related quality of life (HRQL).

RECENT FINDINGS

The impact of bariatric surgery on HRQL is less well-understood than its clinical effectiveness on weight and co-morbidities. Poor-quality study design and different HRQL measures challenge systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Available limited evidence suggests that physical aspects of HRQL may improve more than mental health aspects of HRQL after bariatric surgery, reaching maximal benefits 1-2 years post-surgery. Comparative HRQL analyses between bariatric procedures cannot be made due to a lack of randomised data. Qualitative research highlights the tensions patients experience after bariatric surgery, which provides insights to observed changes in HRQL. Standardized HRQL measures are being developed and agreed to improve future evidence synthesis. Two multi-centre randomised trials of bariatric surgical procedures including detailed HRQL assessment are in progress. It is hoped that the combination of comparative high-quality HRQL data and information from qualitative studies will provide new insights into patient well-being and health after bariatric surgery.

Understanding and optimising patient and public involvement in trial oversight: an ethnographic study of eight clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Trial oversight is important for trial governance and conduct. Patients and/or lay members of the public are increasingly included in trial oversight committees, influenced by international patient and public involvement (PPI) initiatives to improve the quality and relevance of research. However, there is a lack of guidance on how to undertake PPI in trial oversight and tokenistic PPI remains an issue. This paper explores how PPI functions in existing trial oversight committees and provides recommendations to optimise PPI in future trials. This was part of a larger study investigating the role and function of oversight committees in trials facing challenges.

METHODS

Using an ethnographic study design, we observed oversight meetings of eight UK trials and conducted semi-structured interviews with members of their trial steering committees (TSCs) and trial management groups (TMGs) including public contributors, trial sponsors and funders. Thematic analysis of data was undertaken, with findings integrated to provide a multi-perspective account of how PPI functions in trial oversight.

RESULTS

Eight TSC and six TMG meetings from eight trials were observed, and 66 semi-structured interviews conducted with 52 purposively sampled oversight group members, including three public contributors. PPI was reported as beneficial in trial oversight, with public members contributing a patient voice and fulfilling a patient advocacy role. However, public contributors were not always active at oversight meetings and were sometimes felt to have a tokenistic role, with trialists reporting a lack of understanding of how to undertake PPI in trial oversight. To optimise PPI in trial oversight, the following areas were highlighted: the importance of planning effective strategies to recruit public contributors; considering the level of oversight and stage(s) of trial to include PPI; support for public contributors by the trial team between and during oversight meetings.

CONCLUSIONS

We present evidence-based recommendations to inform future PPI in trial oversight. Consideration should be given at trial design stage on how to recruit and involve public contributors within trial oversight, as well as support and mentorship for both public contributors and trialists (in how to undertake PPI effectively). Findings from this study further strengthen the evidence base on facilitating meaningful PPI within clinical trials.

Patients' experiences of life after bariatric surgery and follow-up care: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Bariatric surgery is the most clinically effective treatment for people with severe and complex obesity, however, the psychosocial outcomes are less clear. Follow-up care after bariatric surgery is known to be important, but limited guidance exists on what this should entail, particularly related to psychological and social well-being. Patients' perspectives are valuable to inform the design of follow-up care. This study investigated patients' experiences of life after bariatric surgery including important aspects of follow-up care, in the long term.

DESIGN

A qualitative study using semistructured individual interviews. A constant comparative approach was used to code data and identify themes and overarching concepts.

SETTING

Bariatric surgery units of two publicly funded hospitals in the South of England.

PARTICIPANTS

Seventeen adults (10 women) who underwent a primary operation for obesity (mean time since surgery 3.11 years, range 4 months to 9 years), including Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, adjustable gastric band and sleeve gastrectomy, agreed to participate in the interviews.

RESULTS

Experiences of adapting to life following surgery were characterised by the concepts of 'normality' and 'ambivalence', while experiences of 'abandonment' and 'isolation' dominated participants' experiences of follow-up care. Patients highlighted the need for more flexible, longer-term follow-up care that addresses social and psychological difficulties postsurgery and integrates peer support.

CONCLUSIONS

This research highlights unmet patient need for more accessible and holistic follow-up care that addresses the long-term multidimensional impact of bariatric surgery. Future research should investigate effective and acceptable follow-up care packages for patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

Recommendations on the most suitable quality-of-life measurement instruments for bariatric and body contouring surgery: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to systematically assess the quality of existing patient-reported outcome measures developed and/or validated for Quality of Life measurement in bariatric surgery (BS) and body contouring surgery (BCS).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews and CENTRAL identifying studies on measurement properties of BS and BCS Quality of Life instruments. For all eligible studies, we evaluated the methodological quality of the studies by using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist and the quality of the measurement instruments by applying quality criteria. Four degrees of recommendation were assigned to validated instruments (A-D).

RESULTS

Out of 4,354 articles, a total of 26 articles describing 24 instruments were included. No instrument met all requirements (category A). Seven instruments have the potential to be recommended depending on further validation studies (category B). Of these seven, the BODY-Q has the strongest evidence for content validity in BS and BCS. Two instruments had poor quality in at least one required quality criterion (category C). Fifteen instruments were minimally validated (category D).

CONCLUSION

The BODY-Q, developed for BS and BCS, possessed the strongest evidence for quality of measurement properties and has the potential to be recommended in future clinical trials.

Patient experiences of outcomes of bariatric surgery: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis

Although bariatric surgery is the most effective treatment for severe and complex obesity, less is known about its psychosocial impact. This systematic review synthesizes qualitative studies investigating the patient perspective of living with the outcomes of surgery. A total of 2,604 records were screened, and 33 studies were included. Data extraction and thematic synthesis yielded three overarching themes: control, normality and ambivalence. These were evident across eight organizing sub-themes describing areas of life impacted by surgery: weight, activities of daily living, physical health, psychological health, social relations, sexual life, body image and eating behaviour and relationship with food. Throughout all these areas, patients were striving for control and normality. Many of the changes experienced were positive and led to feeling more in control and 'normal'. Negative changes were also experienced, as well as changes that were neither positive nor negative but were nonetheless challenging and required adaptation. Thus, participants continued to strive for control and normality in some aspects of their lives for a considerable time, contributing to a sense of ambivalence in accounts of life after surgery. These findings demonstrate the importance of long-term support, particularly psychological and dietary, to help people negotiate these challenges and maintain positive changes achieved after bariatric surgery.

A Comparison of Health Professionals' and Patients' Views of the Importance of Outcomes of Bariatric Surgery

BACKGROUND

A comprehensive evaluation of bariatric surgery is required to inform decision-making. This will include measures of benefit and risk. It is possible that stakeholders involved with surgery value these outcomes differently, although this has not previously been explored. This study aimed to investigate and compare how professionals and patients prioritise outcomes of bariatric surgery.

METHODS

Systematic reviews and qualitative interviews created an exhaustive list of outcomes. This informed the development of a 130-item questionnaire, structured in four sections (complications of surgery; clinical effectiveness; signs, symptoms, and other measures; quality of life). Health professionals and patients rated the importance of each item on a 1-9 scale. Items rated 8-9 by at least 70 % of the participants were considered prioritised. Items prioritised in each section were compared between professionals and patients and interrater agreement assessed using kappa statistics (ĸ).

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-eight out of four hundred fifty-nine professionals (36.6 %) and 90/465 patients (19.4 %) completed the questionnaire. Professionals and patients prioritised 18 and 25 items, respectively, with 10 overlapping items and 23 discordant items (ĸ 0.363). Examples of items prioritised by both included 'diabetes' and 'leakage from bowel joins'. Examples of discordant items included 're-admission rates' (professionals only) and 'excess skin' (patients only). Poor agreement was seen in the 'quality of life' section (0 overlapping items, 8 discordant, ĸ -0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

Although there was some overlap of outcomes prioritised by professionals and patients, there were important differences. We recommend that the views of all relevant health professionals and patients are considered when deciding on outcomes to evaluate bariatric surgery.

A Core Outcome Set for the Benefits and Adverse Events of Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery: The BARIACT Project

BACKGROUND

Bariatric and metabolic surgery is used as a treatment for patients with severe and complex obesity. However, there is a need to improve outcome selection and reporting in bariatric surgery trials. A Core Outcome Set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes reported in all studies of a specific condition, may achieve this. Here, we present the development of a COS for BARIAtric and metabolic surgery Clinical Trials-the BARIACT Study.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Outcomes identified from systematic reviews and patient interviews informed a questionnaire survey. Patients and health professionals were surveyed three times and asked to rate the importance of each item on a 1-9 scale. Delphi methods provided anonymised feedback to participants. Items not meeting predefined criteria were discarded between rounds. Remaining items were discussed at consensus meetings, held separately with patients and professionals, where the COS was agreed. Data sources identified 2,990 outcomes, which were used to develop a 130-item questionnaire. Round 1 response rates were moderate but subsequently improved to above 75% for other rounds. After rounds 2 and 3, 81 and 14 items were discarded, respectively, leaving 35 items for discussion at consensus meetings. The final COS included nine items: "weight," "diabetes status," "cardiovascular risk," "overall quality of life (QOL)," "mortality," "technical complications of the specific operation," "any re-operation/re-intervention," "dysphagia/regurgitation," and "micronutrient status." The main limitation of this study was that it was based in the United Kingdom only.

CONCLUSIONS

The COS is recommended to be used as a minimum in all trials of bariatric and metabolic surgery. Adoption of the COS will improve data synthesis and the value of research data. Future work will establish methods for the measurement of the outcomes in the COS.

Outcome reporting in bariatric surgery: an in-depth analysis to inform the development of a core outcome set, the BARIACT Study

Outcome reporting in bariatric surgery needs a core outcome set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes reported in all studies of a particular condition. The aim of this study was to summarize outcome reporting in bariatric surgery to inform the development of a COS. Outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and large non-randomized studies identified by a systematic review were listed verbatim and categorized into domains, scrutinizing the frequency of outcome reporting and uniformity of definitions. Ninety studies (39 RCTs) identified 1,088 separate outcomes, grouped into nine domains with most (n = 920, 85%) reported only once. The largest outcome domain was 'surgical complications', and overall, 42% of outcomes corresponded to a theme of 'adverse events'. Only a quarter of outcomes were defined, and where provided definitions, which were often contradictory. Percentage of excess weight loss was the main study outcome in 49 studies, but nearly 40% of weight loss outcomes were heterogeneous, thus not comparable. Outcomes of diverse bariatric operations focus largely on adverse events. Reporting is inconsistent and ill-defined, limiting interpretation and comparison of published studies. Thus, we propose and are developing a COS for the surgical treatment of severe and complex obesity.

Patient-reported outcomes in bariatric surgery: a systematic review of standards of reporting

Bariatric surgery is increasingly being used to treat severe obesity, but little is known about its impact on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). For PRO data to influence practice, well-designed and reported studies are required. A systematic review identified prospective bariatric surgery studies that used validated PRO measures. Risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed, and papers were examined for reporting of (i) who completed PRO measures; (ii) missing PRO data and (iii) clinical interpretation of PRO data. Studies meeting all criteria were classified as robust. Eighty-six studies were identified. Of the eight RCTs, risk of bias was high in one and unclear in seven. Sixty-eight different PRO measures were identified, with the Short Form (SF)-36 questionnaire most commonly used. Forty-one (48%) studies explicitly stated measures were completed by patients, 63 (73%) documented missing PRO data and 50 (58%) interpreted PRO data clinically. Twenty-six (30%) met all criteria. Although many bariatric surgery studies assess PROs, study design and reporting is often poor, limiting data interpretation and synthesis. Well-designed studies that include agreed PRO measures are needed with reporting to include integration with clinical outcomes to inform practice.

Fatty acids and lignans in unground whole flaxseed and sesame seed are bioavailable but have minimal antioxidant and lipid-lowering effects in postmenopausal women

Fatty acids and lignans in ground flaxseed and sesame seed are absorbed, metabolized, and exert some health benefits in vivo. However, it is unclear if they are absorbed, metabolized, and exert health benefits when consumed as unground whole seed; therefore, it was investigated in this study. In a randomized crossover study, 16 postmenopausal women supplemented their diets with food bars containing either 25 g unground flaxseed, sesame seed, or their combination (12.5 g each) (flaxseed+sesame seed bar, FSB) for 4 wk each, separated by 4 wk washout periods. Total serum n-3 fatty acids increased with flaxseed (p<0.05) and FSB (p=0.064) while serum n-6 fatty acids increased with sesame seed (p<0.05). Urinary lignans increased similarly with all treatments (p<0.05). Plasma lipids and several antioxidant markers were unaffected by all treatments, except serum gamma-tocopherol (GT), which increased with both sesame seed (p<0.0001) and FSB (p<0.01). In conclusion, fatty acids and lignans from unground seed in food bars are absorbed and metabolized; however, except for serum GT, the 25 g unground seed is inadequate to induce changes in plasma lipids and several biomarkers of oxidative stress.

Whole Sesame Seed Is as Rich a Source of Mammalian Lignan Precursors as Whole Flaxseed

The mammalian lignans enterolactone and enterodiol, which are produced by the microflora in the colon of humans and animals from precursors in foods, have been suggested to have potential anticancer effects. This study determined the production of mammalian lignans from precursors in food bars containing 25 g unground whole flaxseed (FB), sesame seed (SB), or their combination (FSB; 12.5 g each). In a randomized crossover study, healthy postmenopausal women supplemented their diets with the bars for 4 wk each separated by 4-wk washout periods, and urinary mammalian lignan excretion was measured at baseline and after 4 wk as a marker of mammalian lignan production. Results showed an increase with all treatments (65.1-81.0 mumol/day; P < 0.0001), which did not differ among treatments. Lignan excretion with the whole flaxseed was similar to results of other studies using ground flaxseed. An unidentified lignan metabolite was detected after consumption of SB and FSB but not of FB. Thus, we demonstrated for the first time that 1) precursors from unground whole flaxseed and sesame seed are converted by the bacterial flora in the colon to mammalian lignans and 2) sesame seed, alone and in combination with flaxseed, produces mammalian lignans equivalent to those obtained from flaxseed alone.