A feasibility randomised controlled trial of a motivational interviewing-based intervention for weight loss maintenance in adults

Authors: Simpson SA, McNamara R, Shaw C, Kelson M, Moriarty Y, Randell E, Cohen D, Alam MF, Copeland L, Duncan D, Espinasse A, Gillespie D, Hill A, Owen-Jones E, Tapper K, Townson J, Williams S, Hood K

Journal: Health Technology Assessment Volume: 19 Issue: 50

Publication date: July 2015

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta19500

Citation:

Simpson SA, McNamara R, Shaw C, Kelson M, Moriarty Y, Randell E, et al.A feasibility randomised controlled trial of a motivational interviewing-based intervention for weight loss maintenance in adults. Health Technol Assess 2015;19(50)


Download: Citation (for this publication as a .ris file) (9.5 KB)


Journal issues* can be purchased by completing the form.


The cost of reports varies according to number of pages and postage address. The minimum cost for a copy sent to a UK address is £30.00. We will contact you on receipt of your completed form to advise you of actual cost. If you have any queries, please contact nihredit@southampton.ac.uk.


*We regret that unfortunately we are unable to supply bound print copies of Health Technology Assessment published before issue 12:31. However, PDFs are available to print from the "Downloads" tab of the issue page.

Responses

No responses have been published. If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below.

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 2 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

Post your response

Surname

Forename

Middle Initial

Occupation / Job title

Affiliation / Employer

Email

Address

Other authors

For example, if you are responding as a team or group. Please ensure you include full names and separate these using commas

Statement of competing interests

We believe that readers should be aware of any competing interests (conflicts of interest).

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) define competing interests as including: financial relationships with industry (for example through employment, consultancies, stock, ownership, honoraria, and expert testimony), either directly or through immediate family; personal relationships; academic competition; and intellectual passion.

If yes, provide details below:

Enter response title

Enter response message

Enter CAPTCHA

Security key

Regenerate security key

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

The online version of this issue is currently unavailable.
The PDF version is available from the downloads section of this page.

Abstract

Background

Obesity has significant health and NHS cost implications. Relatively small reductions in weight have clinically important benefits, but long-term weight loss maintenance (WLM) is challenging. Behaviour change interventions have been identified as key for WLM. Motivation is crucial to supporting behaviour change, and motivational interviewing (MI) has been identified as a successful approach to changing health behaviours. The study was designed as an adequately powered, pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT); however, owing to recruitment issues, the study became a feasibility trial.

Objectives

To assess recruitment, retention, feasibility, acceptability, compliance and delivery of a 12-month intervention to support WLM. Secondary objectives were to assess the impact of the intervention on body mass index (BMI) and other secondary outcomes.

Design

Three-arm individually randomised controlled trial comprising an intensive arm, a less intensive arm and a control arm.

Setting

Community setting in South Wales and the East Midlands.

Participants

Individuals aged 18-70 years with a current or previous BMI of 30 kg/m(2) who could provide evidence of at least 5% weight loss during the previous 12 months.

Intervention

Participants received individually tailored MI, which included planning and self-monitoring. The intensive arm received six face-to-face sessions followed by nine telephone sessions. The less intensive arm received two face-to-face sessions followed by two telephone sessions. The control arm received a leaflet advising them on healthy lifestyle.

Main outcome measures

Feasibility outcomes included numbers recruited, retention and adherence. The primary effectiveness outcome was BMI at 12 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, physical activity, proportion maintaining weight loss, diet, quality of life, health service resource usage, binge eating and well-being. A process evaluation assessed intervention delivery, adherence, and participants' and practitioners' views. Economic analysis aimed to assess cost-effectiveness in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

Results

A total of 170 participants were randomised. Retention was good (84%) and adherence was excellent (intensive, 83%; less intensive, 91%). The between-group difference in mean BMI indicated the intensive arm had BMIs 1.0 kg/m(2) lower than the controls [95% confidence interval (CI) -2.2 kg/m(2) to 0.2 kg/m(2)]. Similarly, a potential difference was found in weight (average difference of 2.8 kg, 95% CI -6.1 kg to 0.5 kg). The intensive arm had odds of maintaining on average 43% [odds ratio(OR) 1.4, 95% CI 0.6 to 3.5] higher than controls. None of these findings were statistically significant. Further analyses controlling for level of adherence indicated that average BMI was 1.2 kg/m(2) lower in the intensive arm than the control arm (95% CI -2.5 kg/m(2) to 0.0 kg/m(2)). The intensive intervention led to a statistically significant difference in weight (mean -3.7 kg, 95% CI -7.1 kg to -0.3 kg). The other secondary outcomes showed limited evidence of differences between groups. The intervention was delivered as planned, and both practitioners and participants were positive about the intervention and its impact. Although not powered to assess cost-effectiveness, results of this feasibility study suggest that neither intervention as currently delivered is likely to be cost-effective in routine practice.

Conclusion

This is the first trial of an intervention for WLM in the UK, the intervention is feasible and acceptable, and retention and adherence were high. The main effectiveness outcome showed a promising mean difference in the intensive arm. Owing to the small sample size, we are limited in the conclusions we can draw. However, findings suggest that the intensive intervention may facilitate long-term weight maintenance and, therefore, further testing in an effectiveness trial may be indicated. Research examining WLM is in its infancy, further research is needed to develop our understanding of WLM and to expand theory to inform the development of interventions to be tested in rigorously designed RCTs with cost-effectiveness assessed.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN35774128.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Share this page

Email this page
Publication updates

If you would like to receive information on publications and the latest news, click below to sign up.