Guidance

About this guideline

About this guideline

What evidence is the guideline based on?

The evidence that the PDG considered included:

  • Evidence reviews:

    • Review 1 was divided into 3 sections and was carried out by the University of Oxford. The principal authors were: Paul Aveyard, Jamie Hartmann-Boyce and David Johns.

      • Review 1a, 'The clinical effectiveness of long-term weight management schemes for adults'.

      • Review 1b, 'How components of behavioural weight management programmes affect weight change'.

      • Review 1c, 'Weight regain after behavioural weight management programmes'.

    • Review 2: 'Managing overweight and obese adults' was carried out by the University of Oxford. The principal authors were: Paul Aveyard, Jamie Hartmann-Boyce and David Johns.

  • Economic modelling: 'Economic modelling and cost consequence analysis' was carried out by the UK Health Forum and the University of East Anglia. The authors were: Martin Brown, Tim Marsh, Lise Retat, Ric Fordham, Marc Suhrcke, David Turner, Richard Little and Oyebanji Filani.

  • Commissioned report: 'Practical and process issues in the provision of lifestyle weight management services for adults' was carried out by GK research. The principal author was Graham Kelly.

  • Expert papers:

    • Expert paper 1 'Weight bias and stigma and the effectiveness of weight management programmes' by Jane Ogden, Professor in Health Psychology, University of Surrey.

    • Expert paper 2 'Experience from practice – psychological issues' by Rachel Holt, Consultant Clinical Psychologist/Service Lead at Derbyshire Tier 3 Weight Reduction Service.

    • Expert paper 3 'Weight bias and the impact of weight stigma on emotional and physical health' by Dr Rebecca Puhl, Director of Research and Weight Stigma Initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, Yale University.

    • Expert paper 4 'Commissioning and working with health and wellbeing boards' by Stephen Watkins, Director of Public Health, Stockport.

Note: the views expressed in the expert papers above are the views of the authors and not those of NICE.

In some cases the evidence was insufficient and the PDG has made recommendations for future research, see Gaps in the evidence.