Department of Health Education and Behavior, College of Health and Human Performance, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
NBCD A/S, Sanos Group USA Inc., Sacramento, California, USA.
Clin Obes. 2024 Jun;14(3):e12641. doi: 10.1111/cob.12641. Epub 2024 Feb 1.
Most adults with obesity do not enrol in comprehensive weight loss interventions when offered. For these individuals, lower burden self-weighing interventions may offer an acceptable alternative, though data is lacking on the potential for reach and representativeness of such interventions. Health system patients with BMI ≥30 kg/m (or 25-30 kg/m with an obesity comorbidity) completed a general health survey. During the survey, patients were given information about comprehensive weight loss interventions. If they denied interest or did not enrol in a comprehensive intervention, they were offered enrolment in a low-burden weight gain prevention intervention focused on daily self-weighing using a cellular network-connected in-home scale without any dietary or physical activity prescriptions. Enrolment in this program was documented. Among patients offered the self-weighing intervention (n = 85; 55.3% men; 58.8% White; BMI = 34.2 kg/m), 44.2% enrolled. Compared to those who did not enrol, enrollers had higher educational attainment (57.1% vs. 42.9% with bachelor's degree p = .02), social anxiety (5.8 vs. 2.8, p < .001), and perceptions of the effectiveness of the self-weighing intervention (25.8 vs. 20.9 on 35, p = .007). The most highly endorsed reason for not enrolling in the self-weighing intervention was that it would make individuals overly focused on weight. A low-intensity weight gain prevention intervention may serve as a viable alternative to comprehensive weight loss interventions for the substantial portion of patients who are at risk for continued weight gain but would otherwise not enrol in a comprehensive intervention. Differential enrolment by education, however, suggests potential for inequitable uptake.
大多数肥胖的成年人在提供综合减肥干预措施时都不会参与。对于这些人来说，负担较低的自我称重干预措施可能是一种可接受的替代方案，但缺乏此类干预措施的可及性和代表性数据。BMI≥30kg/m（或肥胖合并症患者 BMI 为 25-30kg/m）的卫生系统患者完成了一项一般健康调查。在调查过程中，患者获得了有关综合减肥干预措施的信息。如果他们对这些信息不感兴趣或不参与综合干预，他们将被提供参与一项低负担的增重预防干预措施的机会，该干预措施侧重于使用蜂窝网络连接的家庭内秤进行日常自我称重，而无需进行任何饮食或体育活动处方。记录了参与该计划的情况。在被提供自我称重干预措施的患者中（n=85；55.3%为男性；58.8%为白人；BMI=34.2kg/m），有 44.2%的人参与。与未参与的人相比，参与者的受教育程度更高（57.1% vs. 42.9%，学士学位，p=0.02），社交焦虑程度更高（5.8 vs. 2.8，p<0.001），并且对自我称重干预措施的有效性的看法也更高（25.8 vs. 20.9，p=0.007）。不参与自我称重干预的最主要原因是它会使个人过度关注体重。对于那些有持续增重风险但不会参与综合干预的大量患者来说，低强度增重预防干预措施可能是综合减肥干预措施的可行替代方案。然而，教育程度的差异导致了参与度的不平等。
