Economic Evaluation of a Primary Care Trial to Reduce Weight Gain in Overweight/Obese Children: The LEAP Trial

Background:- A common policy response to the childhood obesity epidemic is to recommend that primary care physicians screen for and offer counseling to the overweight/obese. As the literature suggests, this approach may be ineffective; it is important to document the opportunity costs incurred by brief primary care obesity interventions that ultimately may not alter body mass index (BMI) trajectory.

Methods:- Live, Eat and Play (LEAP) was a randomized controlled trial of a brief secondary prevention intervention delivered by family physicians in 2002-2003 that targeted overweight/ mildly obese children aged 5 to 9 years. Primary care utilization was prospectively audited via medical records, and parents reported family resource use by written questionnaire. Outcome measures were BMI (primary) and parent-reported physical activity and dietary habits (secondary) in intervention compared with control children.

Results:- The cost of LEAP per intervention family was AU $4094 greater than for control families, mainly due to increased family resources devoted to child physical activity. Total health sector costs were AU $873 per intervention family and AU $64 per control, a difference of AU $809 {P < .001). At 15 months, intervention children did not differ significantly in adjusted BMI or daily physical activity scores compared with the control group, but dietary habits had improved.

Conclusions:- This brief intervention resulted in higher costs to families and the health care sector, which could have been devoted to other uses that do create benefits to health and/or family well-being. This has implications for countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, whose current guidelines recommend routine surveillance and counseling for high child BMI in the primary care sector.

Outcomes and costs of primary care surveillance and intervention for overweight or obese children : the LEAP 2 randomised controlled trial

Objective To determine whether ascertainment of childhood obesity by surveillance followed by structured secondary prevention in primary care improved outcomes in overweight or mildly obese children.

Design Randomised controlled trial nested within a baseline cross sectional survey of body mass index (BMI). Randomisation and outcomes measurement, but not participants, were blinded to group assignment.

Setting 45 family practices (66 general practitioners) in Melbourne, Australia.

Participants 3958 children visiting their general practitioner in May 2005-July 2006 were surveyed for BMI. Of these, 258 children aged 5 years 0 months up to their 10th birthday who were overweight or obese by International Obesity Taskforce criteria were randomised to intervention (n=139) or control (n=119) groups. Children who were very obese (UK BMI z score 3.0) were excluded.

Intervention Four standard consultations over 12 weeks targeting change in nutrition, physical activity, and sedentary behaviour, supported by purpose designed family materials.

Main outcomes measures Primary measure was BMI at 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Secondary measures were mean activity count/min by 7-day accelerometry, nutrition score from 4-day abbreviated food frequency diary, and child health related quality of life. Differences were adjusted for socioeconomic status, age, sex, and baseline BMI.

Results Of 781 eligible children, 258 (33%) entered the trial; attrition was 3.1% at 6 months and 6.2% at 12 months. Adjusted mean differences (intervention – control) at 6 and 12 months were, for BMI, –0.12 (95% CI –0.40 to 0.15, P=0.4) and –0.11 (–0.45 to 0.22, P=0.5); for physical activity in counts/min, 24 (–4 to 52, P=0.09) and 11 (–26 to 49, P=0.6); and, for nutrition score, 0.2 (–0.03 to 0.4, P=0.1) and 0.1 (–0.1 to 0.4, P=0.2). There was no evidence of harm to the child. Costs to the healthcare system were significantly higher in the intervention arm.

Conclusions Primary care screening followed by brief counselling did not improve BMI, physical activity, or nutrition in overweight or mildly obese 5-10 year olds, and it would be very costly if universally implemented. These findings are at odds with national policies in countries including the US, UK, and Australia.

Addressing evidence treatment gaps for cardiovascular disease through primary care collaboration

Aims &amp; Rationale/Objectives
The aim is to establish the frequency of counselling by general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists (CPs) for patients with uncontrolled CVD risk factors. This will identify conditions for which CPs might collaborate with GPs in addressing evidence-treatment gaps.

Methods
A population survey undertaken in the Wimmera region of Victoria in 2006. 1425 adults aged 25-84 yrs were randomly selected using age/sex stratified electoral role samples. A representative 723 participants were recruited.

Principal Findings
Data on GP and CP visits were available for 694 participants. Overall, participants visited GPs 4.6 times and CPs 6.0 times/annum. However, one third of participants never consulted a pharmacist in 12 months compared to just 11.5% for GPs. Among obese patients (BMI ?? 30), the average number of visits/annum was 4.5 to GPs and 6.8 to CPs. The equivalent numbers were 5.6 and 8.6 respectively for those with systolic BP ?? 140 mmHg; 3.7 and 5.5 for total cholesterol > 5.0 mmol/L; and, 6.7 and 14.6 for patients with random blood glucose concentrations ?? 7.0 mmol/L.

Implications
People with suboptimal status for most common CVD risk factor are counselled frequently by CPs. A coordinated approach with GPs to the delivery of cardiovascular health promotion could provide valuable reinforcement of key messages and offers greater opportunity to identify at-risk individuals. Acknowledgements: KM is a pharmacist-academic at Greater Green Triangle UDRH, a position funded by the Department of Health and Ageing through the Rural and Remote Pharmacy Workforce Development Program

Suboptimal management of cardiovascular risk factors in coronary heart disease patients in primary care occurs particularly in women

Background:&ensp; Patients with established coronary heart disease (CHD) are at the highest risk of further events. Despite proven therapies, secondary prevention is often suboptimal. General practitioners (GPs) are in an ideal position to improve secondary prevention.

Aim:&ensp; To contrast management of cardiovascular risk factors in patients with established CHD in primary care to those in clinical guidelines and according to gender.

Methods:&ensp; GPs throughout Australia were approached to participate in a programme incorporating a disease management software (mdCare) program. Participating practitioners (1258 GPs) recruited individual patients whose cardiovascular risk factor levels were measured.

Results:&ensp; The mdCare programme included 12 509 patients (58% male) diagnosed with CHD. Their mean age was 71.7 years (intra-quartile range 66–78) for men and 74 years (intra-quartile range 68–80) for women. Low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol was above target levels in 69% (2032) of women compared with 58% (2487) in men (P < 0.0001). There was also a higher proportion of women with total cholesterol above target levels (76%, 3592) compared with men (57%, 3787) (P < 0.0001). In patients who were prescribed lipid-lowering medication, 53% (2504) of men and 72% (2285) of women continued to have a total cholesterol higher than recommended target levels (P < 0.0001). Overall, over half (52%, 6538) had at least five cardiovascular risk factors (55% (2914) in women and 50% (3624) in men, P < 0.0001).

Conclusion:&ensp; This study found less intensive management of cardiovascular risk factors in CHD patients, particularly among women, despite equivalent cardiovascular risk. This study has shown that these patients have multiple risk factors where gender also plays a role.

Barriers to primary care clinician adherence to clinical guidelines for the management of low back pain: protocol of a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain is the highest ranked condition contributing to years lived with disability, and is a significant economic and societal burden. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are designed to improve quality of care and reduce practice variation by providing graded recommendations based on the best available evidence. Studies of low back pain guideline implementation have shown no or modest effects at changing clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To identify enablers and barriers to adherence to clinical practice guidelines for the management of low back pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative studies that will be conducted and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement guidelines. Eight databases will be searched using a priori inclusion/exclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers will conduct a structured review and meta-synthesis, and a third reviewer will arbitrate where there is disagreement. This protocol has been registered on PROSPERO 2014. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required. The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The review will also be disseminated electronically, in print and at conferences. Updates of the review will be conducted to inform and guide healthcare translation into practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO 2014:CRD42014012961. Available from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42014012961.

Empowering primary care to tackle the obesity epidemic: the Counterweight Programme

Subjects: Obese patients (body mass index greater than or equal to30 kg/m2) or BMIgreater than or equal to28 kg/m2 with obesity-related comorbidities in 80 general practices.

Intervention: The model consists of four phases: (1) audit and project development, (2) practice training and support, (3) nurse-led patient intervention, and (4) evaluation. The intervention programme used evidence-based pathways, which included strategies to empower clinicians and patients. Weight Management Advisers who are specialist obesity dietitians facilitated programme implementation.

Main outcome measures: Proportion of practices trained and recruiting patients, and weight change at 12 months.

Results: By March 2004, 58 of the 62 (93.5%) intervention practices had been trained, 47 (75.8%) practices were active in implementing the model and 1549 patients had been recruited. At 12 months, 33% of patients achieved a clinically meaningful weight loss of 5% or more. A total of 49% of patients were classed as 'completers' in that they attended the requisite number of appointments in 3, 6 and 12 months. 'Completers' achieved more successful weight loss with 40% achieving a weight loss of 5% or more at 12 months.

Conclusion: The Counterweight programme provides a promising model to improve the management of obesity in primary care.

Sponsorship: Educational grant-in-aid from Roche Products Ltd.

The impact of obesity on drug prescribing in primary care

Background

Healthcare costs attributable to obesity have previously involved estimations based on costs of diseases commonly considered as having obesity as an underlying factor.

Aim

To quantify the impact of obesity on total primary care drug prescribing.

Design of study

Review of computer generated and handwritten prescriptions to determine total prescribing volume for all drug classes.

Setting

Twenty-three general practice surgeries in the UK.

Method

Stratified random selection of 1150 patients who were obese (body mass index [BMI]>30 kg/m2) and 1150 age- and sex-matched controls of normal weight (BMI 18.5–<25 kg/m2). Retrospective review of medical records over an 18-month period.

Results

A higher percentage of patients who were obese, compared with those of normal weight, were prescribed at least one drug in the following disease categories: cardiovascular (36% versus 20%), central nervous system (46% versus 35%), endocrine (26% versus 18%), and musculoskeletal and joint disease (30% versus 22%). All of these categories had a P-value of <0.001. Other categories, such as gastrointestinal (24% versus 18%), infections (42% versus 35%), skin (24% versus 19%) had a P-value of <0.01, while respiratory diseases (18% versus 21%) had a P-value of <0.05. Total prescribing volume was significantly higher for the group with obesity and was increased in the region of two- to fourfold in a wide range of prescribing categories: ulcer healing drugs, lipid regulators, β-adrenoreceptor drugs, drugs affecting the rennin angiotensin system, calcium channel blockers, antibacterial drugs, sulphonylureas, biguanides, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) (P<0.001) and fibrates, angiotensin II antagonists, and thyroid drugs (P<0.05). The main impact on prescribing volumes is from numbers of patients treated, although in some areas there is an effect from greater dosage or longer treatment in those who are obese including calcium channel blockers, antihistamines, hypnotics, drugs used in the treatment of nausea and vertigo, biguanides, and NSAIDs (P<0.05) reflected in significantly increased defined daily dose prescribing.

Current approaches to obesity management in UK Primary Care: the Counterweight Programme

Background/Aims Primary care is expected to develop strategies to manage obese patients as part of coronary heart disease and diabetes national service frameworks. Little is known about current management practices for obesity in this setting. The aim of this study is to examine current approaches to obesity management in UK primary care and to identify potential gaps in care.

Method A total of 141 general practitioners (GPs) and 66 practice nurses (PNs) from 40 primary care practices participated in structured interviews to examine clinician self-reported approaches to obesity management. Medical records were also reviewed for 100 randomly selected obese patients from each practice [body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg m−2, n = 4000] to review rates of diet counselling, dietetic or obesity centre referrals, and use of anti-obesity medication. Computerized medical records for the total practice population (n = 206 341, 18–75 years) were searched to examine the proportion of patients with a weight/BMI ever recorded.

Results Eighty-three per cent of GPs and 97% of PNs reported that they would raise weight as an issue with obese patients (P < 0.01). Few GPs (15%) reported spending up to 10 min in a consultation discussing weight-related issues, compared with PNs (76%; P < 0.001). Over 18 months, practice-based diet counselling (20%), dietetic (4%) and obesity centre (1%) referrals, and any anti-obesity medication (2%) were recorded. BMI was recorded for 64.2% of patients and apparent prevalence of obesity was less than expected.

Conclusion Obesity is under-recognized in primary care even in these 40 practices with an interest in weight management. Weight management appears to be based on brief opportunistic intervention undertaken mainly by PNs. While clinicians report the use of external sources of support, few patients are referred, with practice-based counselling being the most common intervention.

A new evidence-based approach to weight management in primary care: the Counterweight Programme

Background/Aims Obesity has become a global epidemic, and a major preventable cause of morbidity and mortality. Management strategies and treatment protocols are however poorly developed and evaluated. The aim of the Counterweight Programme is to develop an evidence-based model for the management of obesity in primary care.

Methods The Counterweight Programme is based on the theoretical model of Evidence-Based Quality Assessment aimed at improving the management of obese adults (18–75 years) in primary care. The model consists of four phases: (1) practice audit and needs assessment, (2) practice support and training, (3) practice nurse-led patient intervention, and (4) evaluation. Patient intervention consisted of screening and treatment pathways incorporating evidence-based approaches, including patient-centred goal setting, prescribed eating plans, a group programme, physical activity and behavioural approaches, anti-obesity medication and weight maintenance strategies. Weight Management Advisers who are specialist obesity dietitians facilitated programme implementation. Eighty practices were recruited of which 18 practices were randomized to act as controls and receive deferred intervention 2 years after the initial audit.

Results By February 2004, 58 of the 62 (93.5%) intervention practices had been trained to run the intervention programme, 47 (75.8%) practices were active in implementing the model and 1256 patients had been recruited (74% female, 26% male, mean age 50.6 years, SD 14). At baseline, 75% of patients had at one or more co-morbidity, and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 36.9 kg/m2 (SD 5.4). Of the 1256 patients recruited, 91% received one of the core lifestyle interventions in the first 12 months. For all patients followed up at 12 months, 34% achieved a clinical meaningful weight loss of 5% or more. A total of 51% of patients were classed as compliant in that they attended the required level of appointments in 3, 6, and 12 months. For fully compliant patients, weight loss improved with 43% achieving a weight loss of 5% or more at 12 months.

Conclusion The Counterweight Programme is an evidence-based weight management model which is feasible to implement in primary care.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of weight management in primary care

Background:&ensp; As obesity prevalence and health-care costs increase, Health Care providers must prevent and manage obesity cost-effectively.

Methods:&ensp; Using the 2006 NICE obesity health economic model, a primary care weight management programme (Counterweight) was analysed, evaluating costs and outcomes associated with weight gain for three obesity-related conditions (type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, colon cancer). Sensitivity analyses examined different scenarios of weight loss and background (untreated) weight gain.

Results:&ensp; Mean weight changes in Counterweight attenders was −3 kg and −2.3 kg at 12 and 24 months, both 4 kg below the expected 1 kg/year background weight gain. Counterweight delivery cost was &pound;59.83 per patient entered. Even assuming drop-outs/non-attenders at 12 months (55%) lost no weight and gained at the background rate, Counterweight was ‘dominant’ (cost-saving) under ‘base-case scenario’, where 12-month achieved weight loss was entirely regained over the next 2 years, returning to the expected background weight gain of 1 kg/year. Quality-adjusted Life-Year cost was &pound;2017 where background weight gain was limited to 0.5 kg/year, and &pound;2651 at 0.3 kg/year. Under a ‘best-case scenario’, where weights of 12-month-attenders were assumed thereafter to rise at the background rate, 4 kg below non-intervention trajectory (very close to the observed weight change), Counterweight remained ‘dominant’ with background weight gains 1 kg, 0.5 kg or 0.3 kg/year.

Conclusion:&ensp; Weight management for obesity in primary care is highly cost-effective even considering only three clinical consequences. Reduced healthcare resources use could offset the total cost of providing the Counterweight Programme, as well as bringing multiple health and Quality of Life benefits.

Evaluation of pre-natal care from the perspective of different models in primary care

OBJETIVOS: avaliar a qualidade do cuidado pré-natal desenvolvido na atenção primária, comparando os modelos tradicional e Estratégia Saúde da Família. MÉTODO: estudo de avaliação de serviço, pautado nas políticas públicas de saúde. Os dados foram obtidos por meio de entrevista com gerentes, observação nas unidades de saúde e análise de prontuários de gestantes, selecionados aleatoriamente. Diferenças nos indicadores de estrutura e processo foram avaliadas pelo teste qui-quadrado, adotando-se p<0,05 como nível crítico, cálculo dos odds ratio e intervalos de confiança de 95%. RESULTADOS: foram evidenciadas estruturas semelhantes em ambos os modelos de atenção. Indicadores-síntese de processo, criados neste estudo, e os indicados pelas políticas públicas apontaram situação mais favorável nas Unidades de Saúde da Família. Para o conjunto de atividades preconizadas para o pré-natal, o desempenho foi deficiente em ambos os modelos, embora pouco melhor nas Unidades de Saúde da Família. CONCLUSÃO: os resultados indicam a necessidade de ações para melhoria da atenção pré-natal nos dois modelos de atenção básica no município avaliado.

Hospitalizations for Conditions Sensitive to Primary Care: A Geo-Epidemiological Profile Analysis of in a Hospital in the Sao Paulo State, From July 2010 to June 2011

The primary health care has been recognized as one of the key components of an effective health system. In its most developed form, the primary health care is the first contact with the health system and the site responsible for the organization of health care over time: individuals, their families and the general population; seeks to provide balance between the two goals of a national health system, which are improving the health of the population and provide equitable distribution of resources. Hospitalizations for primary care sensitive conditions (HPCSC) may be associated with deficiencies of service coverage primary health care or its effectiveness. Hospitalization rates can and should represent a warning sign, triggering mechanisms for analysis and search for explanations for these problems. The use of hospitalization data for HPCSC can serve as indicators of inequality in the health system, contributing to the evaluation of the deployment and implementation of health policies.