↓ Skip to main content

Waste the waist: a pilot randomised controlled trial of a primary care based intervention to support lifestyle change in people with high cardiovascular risk

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
152 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
183 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Waste the waist: a pilot randomised controlled trial of a primary care based intervention to support lifestyle change in people with high cardiovascular risk
Published in
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12966-014-0159-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Colin Greaves, Fiona Gillison, Afroditi Stathi, Paul Bennett, Prasuna Reddy, James Dunbar, Rachel Perry, Daniel Messom, Roger Chandler, Margaret Francis, Mark Davis, Colin Green, Philip Evans, Gordon Taylor

Abstract

BackgroundIn the UK, thousands of people with high cardiovascular risk are being identified by a national risk-assessment programme (NHS Health Checks). Waste the Waist is an evidence-informed, theory-driven (modified Health Action Process Approach), group-based intervention designed to promote healthy eating and physical activity for people with high cardiovascular risk. This pilot randomised controlled trial aimed to assess the feasibility of delivering the Waste the Waist intervention in UK primary care and of conducting a full-scale randomised controlled trial. We also conducted exploratory analyses of changes in weight.MethodsPatients aged 40¿74 with a Body Mass Index of 28 or more and high cardiovascular risk were identified from risk-assessment data or from practice database searches. Participants were randomised, using an online computerised randomisation algorithm, to receive usual care and standardised information on cardiovascular risk and lifestyle (Controls) or nine sessions of the Waste the Waist programme (Intervention). Group allocation was concealed until the point of randomisation. Thereafter, the statistician, but not participants or data collectors were blinded to group allocation. Weight, physical activity (accelerometry) and cardiovascular risk markers (blood tests) were measured at 0, 4 and 12 months.Results108 participants (22% of those approached) were recruited (55 intervention, 53 controls) from 6 practices and 89% provided data at both 4 and 12 months. Participants had a mean age of 65 and 70% were male. Intervention participants attended 72% of group sessions. Based on last observations carried forward, the intervention group did not lose significantly more weight than controls at 12 months, although the difference was significant when co-interventions and co-morbidities that could affect weight were taken into account (Mean Diff 2.6Kg. 95%CI: ¿4.8 to ¿0.3, p¿=¿0.025). No significant differences were found in physical activity.ConclusionsThe Waste the Waist intervention is deliverable in UK primary care, has acceptable recruitment and retention rates and produces promising preliminary weight loss results. Subject to refinement of the physical activity component, it is now ready for evaluation in a full-scale trial.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN10707899.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Unknown 181 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 17%
Researcher 22 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 12%
Student > Bachelor 17 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 27 15%
Unknown 55 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 14%
Sports and Recreations 16 9%
Psychology 10 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Other 23 13%
Unknown 64 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 February 2017.
All research outputs
#12,910,051
of 22,778,347 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#1,640
of 1,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,349
of 352,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity
#51
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,778,347 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,926 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.4. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,360 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.