There are many systematic reviews of weight management interventions delivered by healthcare professionals (HCP), but it is not clear under what circumstances interventions are effective due to differences in review methodology. This review of systematic reviews synthesises the evidence about: (a) the effectiveness of HCP-delivered weight management interventions and (b) intervention and sample characteristics related to their effectiveness.

The review of reviews involved searching six databases (inception – October 2020). Reviews were included if they were (a) systematic, (b) weight management interventions delivered, at least partially, by HCP, (c) of randomised controlled trials and (d) written in English. Data regarding weight management outcomes (e.g. weight) and moderating factors were extracted. Secondary analyses were conducted using study-level data reported in each of the reviews.

The review included studies that were delivered by HCP in any clinical or non-clinical setting.

Not applicable.

Six systematic reviews were included (forty-six unique studies). First-level synthesis showed that weight management interventions delivered by HCP are effective. The second-level synthesis found that interventions are only successful for up to 6 months, are most effective for women, non-Caucasians and adults and are most effective if they have at least six sessions.

As interventions are only successful for up to 6 months, they are not sufficient for achieving and maintaining a healthy weight.

There have been plenty of articles published in recent decades on patient care in the form of case management (CM), but conclusions regarding health outcomes and costs have often been discordant. The objective of this study was to examine previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses with a view to assessing and pooling the overwhelming amount of data available on CM-based health outcomes and resource usage.

We conducted a review of reviews of secondary studies (meta-analyses and systematic reviews) addressing the effectiveness of CM compared with usual care (or other organizational models) in adult (18+) with long-term conditions. PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) were searched from 2000 to the end of December 2017. The outcomes of interest are related to process of care, health measures, and resource usage.

Twenty-two articles were ultimately considered: 4 meta-analyses and 18 systematic reviews. There is strong evidence of CM increasing adherence to treatment guidelines and improving patient satisfaction, but none of the secondary studies considered demonstrated any effect on patient survival. Based on the available literature, there is contrasting evidence regarding all the other health outcomes, such as quality of life (QOL), clinical outcomes, and functional status. Good-quality secondary studies consistently found nothing to indicate that CM prompts any reduction in the use of hospital resources.

The source of variability in the literature on the consistency of the evidence for most outcomes is unclear. It may stem from the heterogeneity of CM programs in terms of what their intervention entails, the populations targeted, and the tools used to measure the results. That said, there was consistently strong evidence of CM being associated with a greater adherence to treatment guidelines and higher patient satisfaction, but not with a longer survival or better use of hospital resources.