Efficacy of Weight Loss Interventions in United States Active Duty Military Populations: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND

Since the beginning of overseas contingency operations, the percent of service members who are considered overweight or obese has tripled to 15% for men and 20% for women. This has implications for national security if the country is unable to staff its military with fit-to-fight individuals. The purpose of this systematic review is to move policy efforts forward by illuminating the efficacy of several lifestyle interventions for active duty service members since 2001. It aims to both identify common aspects of successful interventions and also identify interventions without success so DoD leaders may replace those initiatives.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The electronic database PubMed was searched from September 11, 2001 to May 15, 2020. Studies were included if the target population was United States active duty service members from any branch, the study included an intervention, and the measured outcome was weight loss. Seven studies met final inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Interventions with corresponding weight loss data are summarized in Table III. This review found that there is not a sufficient body of evidence to determine if interventions to aid active duty service members in losing weight are effective.

CONCLUSION

However, as a collection, the studies could support the notion that military members get the best results when interventions are convenient, modern, personalized, and accessible. More studies are needed, and future studies with larger sample sizes and longer durations would be valuable in determining efficacy of weight loss interventions. Undoubtedly, enrollment and compliance is difficult with military member moves and competing mission requirements. Ideally, the DoD should work to aggregate the efforts in this field, as many initiatives are not captured, shared, and utilized by other installations or other services. Data silos and unpublished or underdeveloped research reactively addresses issues and does not proactively address them. Policy change will need to be nested in further research, as well as consider the food environment on bases and possible prevention efforts.