Weight management: lifestyle services for overweight or obese adults

How the evidence and expert papers link to the recommendations

The evidence statements are short summaries of evidence, in a review, report or paper (provided by an expert in the topic area). Each statement has a short code indicating which document the evidence has come from.

Evidence statement number 1.2 indicates that the linked statement is numbered 1.2 in review 1. Evidence statement number 2.2 indicates that the statement is numbered 2.2 in review 2. EP1 indicates that expert paper 1 is linked to a recommendation. CR indicates that the commissioned report is linked to a recommendation. EM indicates that the economic modelling report is linked to a recommendation.

Where a recommendation is not directly taken from the evidence statements, but is inferred from the evidence, this is indicated by IDE (inference derived from the evidence).

Recommendation 1: EP2, EP4; IDE

Recommendation 2: evidence statement 1.9; EP1, EP2, EP3; IDE

Recommendation 3: evidence statements 2.8, 2.9, 2.10; EP2, EP4; CR; IDE

Recommendation 4: evidence statements 2.8, 2.9, 2.10; EP2, EP4; CR; IDE

Recommendation 5: evidence statement 2.1; EP2, EP4; CR; IDE

Recommendation 6: evidence statements 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.10, 1.12, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.11; EP1; EP2; CR, EM

Recommendation 7: evidence statements 1.1, 1.3, 1.23, 2.1, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9; EP1, EP2, EP3, EP4; EM

Recommendation 8: evidence statements 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.7, 2.8, 2.11; EP2, CR.

Recommendation 9: evidence statements 1.2, 1.8, 1.9, 1.11, 1.12, 1.13, 1.14, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 1.22, 2.5, 2.6, 2.14; EP1, EP2, EP3; CR; EM

Recommendation 10: evidence statements 1.18, 1.19, 1.20, 1.21, 1.22, 1.23, 2.5; EP2, EP3; EM

Recommendation 11: evidence statements 1.2, 1.8, 1.9, 1.11, 1.12, 1.13, 1.14, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 1.19, 1.20, 1.21, 1.22, 1.23, 2.5, 2.6, 2.14; EP1, EP2, EP3; CR; EM

Recommendation 12: evidence statements 1.3, 2.13

Recommendation 13: evidence statements 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.10, 1.20, 1.23, 2.12, 2.13; EP2, EP4; CR

Recommendation 14: evidence statements 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.14; EP1, EP2, EP3

Recommendation 15: evidence statements 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.14; EP1, EP2, EP3

Recommendation 16: evidence statement 2.8; EP4; CR

Recommendation 17: evidence statements 2.8, 2.9, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13

Recommendation 18: evidence statements 2.9, 2.10, 2.14; EP4

Economic modelling

Overall, the modelling showed that lifestyle weight management interventions that help people lose weight and then maintain the weight loss in the long term would be cost effective, if they can be identified.

The economic model considered cohorts of (virtual) adults of different ages and with a body mass index (BMI) of 25, 30, 35 and 40 kg/m². The model tested the effect of a 12-week lifestyle weight management programme. All cohorts were followed for the whole of their lives and they contract diseases and conditions at different rates, depending on their BMI.

From a public sector perspective, the modelling showed that if the original weight loss achieved by attending a lifestyle weight management programme were to be maintained for life, most of these interventions would be cost effective. That is, provided they cost less than £500 per person and on average, participants lost more than 1 kg in weight. This is true for all age groups and both sexes.

However, if they were to regain the lost weight within 2 to 3 years, the modelling indicates that few, if any, of these interventions would be cost effective. To be cost effective, they would need to cost less than £100 per person and the average weight lost would need to be in excess of 5 kg.

More detail (including any observed differences by age and gender) is given in the modelling report: Managing overweight and obesity among adults: report on economic modelling and cost consequence analysis.